text:
User talk:PNW Raven

Hello and welcome to Wikibooks!

Here are some tips to help you get started:
 * You should sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~.
 * Remember to conduct any editing experiments in the sandbox.
 * If you're a Wikipedian, see Wikibooks for Wikipedians for a primer on how things work here (it's a little different).
 * If you want to base your work here on materials from Wikipedia, please use WB:RFI to bring the material over in compliance with the GFDL.
 * If you're an instructor and plan on using wikibooks for a class project, see Guidelines for class projects
 * Please say hello at the Staff Lounge with any questions or ideas.
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Please take a look at Naming policy before starting a new book.
 * Remember to maintain a Neutral point of view.
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and have fun!

You will find more resources in Community Portal. If you want to ask a question, visit the Study help desk, the Staff lounge, IRC channel or ask me personally on my talk page. For site news, see the Bulletin board. It might be an idea if you add this page to your "watchlist" so that you can see when any new information is posted there.

Good luck! -- Herby talk thyme 16:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Muggles' Guide
Excellent edits in the Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter! Please continue! -within focus 01:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I will be working on this. I'm having great fun. PNW Raven 14:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Just drop a message on my talk page (here or click the "focus" in my signature) if you have any questions and/or something to tell me. Also check out User:Chazz since he adds most of the content in the book. I think you two will make a good team. -within focus 01:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I certainly hope so... though I don't know, editing my "deathless prose"? <grin> Welcome, and looks like you're editing well. Chazz 09:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Umm... Raven, are you feeling all right? from Ron Weasley: you have just edited from something that was grammatically correct into something that most definitely was not. For example: Ron has taken a liking towards Hermione since as early as the first book -> Ron has took a liking to Hermione as early as the first book. "Has took"? Or: Ron fears spiders, resulting from a prank -> Ron fears spiders, the result from a prank ... Chazz 00:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Am still working on it, but just jump in and fix it when it's needed!! PNW Raven 00:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably best to work on a section until you're happy with it and then save it back, rather than saving it multiple times while in progress. Reason being, somehow both I and withinfocus started jumping on your edits... don't know why, I'm not usually paying that much attention to it; and it's entirely possible that we'll step on each other while that's going on. If you're happy with it when it goes back, likely we will be also and we won't be trying to re-edit while you're editing. One thing my (professional editor) father told me, by the way: If you aren't sure about a passage, read it out loud. If it sounds all right, it will read all right. Chazz 01:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Good tips!!PNW Raven

 * You do know that you don't need to include underscores in links, don't you? Once the front end has dealt with it, Hermione and Hermione work identically... which means that if you're working on a character, you can say ../other character/ and have it come out correctly. Chazz 22:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope, didn't know that. Actually, I haven't done much at all on the links because it's done differently than the way it is on other Wikipedia sections, and I haven't really learned the difference. I've been working around the links as much as possible, hoping someone would just add them in. . .PNW Raven 23:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

 * We'll get there. <grin> Meanwhile, another thing: you do know that the book summary at the start of the book will be going away, don't you? I see you're updating the whole-book summary for OotP; that will all go away when the per-chapter summaries are complete, as it did for PS, CoS, and PoA earlier. It would be better to just work on the per-chapter summaries... Chazz 22:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I was definitely wondering why the summary was there. I'll be incorporating the changes I made into the individual chapters, so hopefully it won't disappear too soon.

 * The whole-book summary will stay there at least until all the individual chapter summaries are complete. When I completed the PS chapters, I found that there were a couple of things in the whole-book summary that hadn't made it into the chapter summaries, so I ended up re-instating the whole-book summary briefly while I added the missing bits into the chapters. The whole-book summary was, if I understand correctly, pulled verbatim from Wikipedia, and is different from what we want; it's being kept only until "something better" is in place. Chazz (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I recognized the text from the Wikipedia because I edited and rewrote much of it. I'll work on making it "better." ;-) PNW Raven 05:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Hey – looks like you've pretty well finished the per-chapter summaries for OotP, except for internal linkage. Thanks... means I can just power through and add links, and that one will be done... I see you've been doing work on the summaries for HBP as well. Thank you very much for that. Are you reasonably happy with the HBP summaries? Because it would be a great relief to be able to cross that off the to-do list... Chazz (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the HBP summaries look very good. I was hoping someone would do the links on OotP! A very tedious, but important task. I also just finished CoS. All chapters looked very good, but I did some minor text streamlining. PNW Raven

 * Okay, I'm very close to the end of GoF – chapters are big, they seem to take me about an hour each, and it's been a while since I had that sort of time. But I'll get to the end of it soon... meanwhile, maybe I can start linking up OotP. Matt was saying that there is a lot of re-linking that has to be done on HBP; a lot of it links in to Wikipedia and should link here instead, so I'll sort that out. Reason I asked about summaries is that Matt also said that HBP seems a little sort on content; on the other hand, it seems to me that the book itself is a little short on content relative to books 2 through 5. I will re-check; but if you're happy with them, I don't anticipate more than tweaks being necessary. Chazz (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Some of the OotP chapters are also short on content--deliberately so for now. I haven't read the book in a long while, and I had to rely on the Spark Notes synopsis to refresh my memory on general plot points until I have a chance to review the book. I'm looking over Goblet, and overall it is looking good. Just some text tweaking is needed. Yes indeed, each chapter does take a long time to write (I have a much better appreciation of what JKR or any author goes through when writing a book!); this is definitely a labor of love for most of us. PNW Raven

 * Ah. Well, see, I can't rely on Spark Notes or Coles or anyone... because a whole lot of the strength of this series lies in the multiple setups and payoffs, something that JKR is a master at; and so many notes keep only the payoffs and skip the setups, making the whole thing flat. So if you try to compress too much, you lose it all. On the other hand, it's possible that I'm leaving too much in... but I always was wordy. Anyway, I always go straight from the books – have 'em on the desk even now. Chazz (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to strike a balance between too much and too little. Spark Notes (I'd never heard of Coles) is way too little in my opinion, but it was helpful in refreshing my memory so I could frame out each OotP chapter synopsis that I worked on as a starting point. Making the synoposis too long is not good either; readers might as well just read the book. Anyway, I'm still working on OotP and have been fleshing out the chapters I did. I thought HBP looked OK, by the way.

 * I'm going to growl at you a little about the stuff you pulled out of GoF chapter 27 and moved to 37. Yes, it goes in 37 as that's where it is revealed; but it should be in 27 as well, because that's where it plays a part in things. I've tried to be careful to put the stuff that gets revealed later into Greater Picture where possible; I guess I missed with that lot today, putting it in Analysis instead of Greater Picture. Would you be so kind as to restore that info, shifting it to the Greater Picture section, so that I don't have to? That's both the Bertha Jorkins memory stuff, and Barty's Boomslang skin. Thanks... Chazz (talk) 03:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I totally understand your "growling," and I don't want you to be upset. The chapters should be analyzed and provide strong plot hints without giving away the ending. Otherwise it is confusing and ruins the ending for the readers by giving away too much. Wiki readers should be treated as if they're reading the actual novels and given an opportunity to figure things out.

However, I see no reason Jorkin's disappearnce cannot be mentioned in the "Greater Picture" section, as there is a specific spoiler warning there.PNW Raven

 * That is sort of the way I've been looking at this as well. What I have to figure is that this will be used as a study guide; our students will be reading along in the chapter notes as they read the books, and so the analysis shouldn't tell too much of what is going to be revealed in later chapters. I've tried to do that in the GoF analysis as well; in particular, I have mentioned Barty Crouch in the analysis a number of times, and that he is in disguise, but I have, I hope, not revealed that he is Moody outside of the Greater Picture.

 * Speaking of which – the stuff you've put in the analysis area of chapter 37 is going to be moved into the chapter 37 summary, because it's all stuff that Barty tells us under the influence of Veritaserum. It's good that it's there now, but I'm going to have to move it – guess I'd better hurry and write that chapter summary, no? <grin> Chazz (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely it should be moved. I just parked it in the Analysis area temporarily until the rest was written. I thought it would look weird just sitting in the Summary area without anything else. I agree about the study guide use. I also see it as a handy reference for those who enjoy the movies, but don't read the books, but want to know more of the backstory.PNW Raven

 * Eager, aren't you? Editing a chapter (GoF 35) that I hadn't even finished writing yet? <grin> Chazz (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't help it!! *stands up* My name is Raven and I'm a. . . COMPULSIVE EDITOR. . . . !!!! *sobs* Excellent overall content, by the way on all the chapters you've done. Not too much or too little. Text flow just needed some streamlining.

 * Not to worry; seems you're not the only one. Maybe people just like tinkering with what I write, to the extent that they feel compelled to attack it as soon as it its the disk. I don't know what that says about my writing... Chazz (talk) 01:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You have the potential to be an excellent writer. As I mentioned, your work just needs streamlining. I took Technical Writing, and it changed my writing style tremendously. 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 overly 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." One word instead of two!!

2. Create fluid, rhythmic sentences that sound pleasing to the reader's ear. Vary sentence structure. Novices tend to write many sentences the same 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 eliminated, but do so whenever possible.

Example:

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. The same for starting sentences with an article.

7. Avoid overusing adjectives and adverbs.

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

These rules really were drilled into me, and 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

 * Hmm. Not sure I agree with all of those... removing prepositional phrases does have a tendency to make the resulting text a bit over choppy. And are we writing technically here? Or are we trying to write a bit more colloquially? I'll grant that I over-use semicolons, but writing summary it seems there is little other way to do it; we have two sentences that ought to be joined because they are dependent, yet dissimilar enough that we can't really hang just a comma in there. And I tend to write as if speaking, which perhaps isn't the best for this application, but it usually suits my humble purposes; but that style does affect what actually hits the page. Of course, my main exposure to these books so far has been reading them aloud to my youngest... perhaps that affects my perception of the appropriate style? Naaah, couldn't be. Chazz (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify--"technical" does not mean writing in a dry, boring "scientific" or "high tech" manner. It is conveying any type information to readers in a succint, easily digestible and understandable manner, which can also be in a more personal style. Of course, the beauty of Wikipedia is even after dozens of people put their stamp on each page, it seems to come out okay in the end.PNW Raven

Triwizard Tournament
I was actually thinking of breaking that into five sections: a tournament overview, and a subsection for each of the three tasks and the Yule Ball, all of which would be Major Events. Seems to me that having the entire Tournament be a major event is a bit overpowering, as it encompasses the entire book... thoughts? Chazz (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I think it's a good idea. Breaking down the three tasks would especially be useful for readers, and maybe a smaller section on the Yule Ball, as that seems to be a traditional part of the tournament.PNW Raven

I see you've been working in this area this morning. I'm figuring on tackling this break-up in about twenty minutes, if that's OK – probably should ask you to refrain from editing the Triwizard until the smoke clears. Chazz (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

OK! I was pretty much done with it, anyway. Have at it! PNW Raven

 * Done... though I do have to go and improve each of the tasks writeups now. Wiki got rather vexed at me because it saw you had fixed a typo while I was in the midst of editing... but I had fixed that typo also and so that was moot. Chazz (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Man, they're touchy! It was a typo "I" had made just prior to your message to me, so I thought I should fix it.

 * More a matter of timing... it's all automated. Wiki software knew that I had hit "edit this page" at time t, you had hit it at time (t+1) and saved it at (t+2), and I didn't hit save until (t+60)... so I needed to know that an edit had happened while I was editing. And it wouldn't let me save until I had merged the changes... which I did by dumping the existing text and substituting with mine, which incorporated that change. This is the only way to do these things when you're working with lots of people editing the same text, as I have learned with my playing with source control systems... but it can be startling. Chazz (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Um... question. It seems that in the description of the Second task, you have twice now changed the description to say that it is the "Black Lake". I have to admit that I don't remember ever seeing that wording in canon; it is simply the lake, where the Giant Squid lives, where the Durmstrang ship floats, and which the first-years sail across in their little boats. Do you have a reference for the name? Chazz (talk) 07:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I was certain I had read that it was called the Black Lake (maybe on one of the Wikipedia HP pages???), but I'll check to verify. If I can't verify it, I'll change it back. I want everything to be 100% accurate. :-) PNW Raven

Extraneous question
Just wondering, as our schedules seem to mesh: Does PNW stand for Pacific Northwest? Chazz 22:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes it does. Good catch. Most people (who don't live here) can't figure that out. (Ravens are my favorite bird.) I live in Seattle.PNW Raven 00:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Domo. I'm three hours north of you by road, just north of the border. Chazz 01:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, neighbor! Small world. PNW Raven 02:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Muggles
Hi - this popped up today Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter/Major Events/Dumbledore's Army - no idea whether it is good or not and you are the first expert on! Cheers -- Herby talk thyme 13:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I made some changes. Feel free to add to it.PNW Raven

 * Hope you don't mind my peeking at your talk page – saw this note, and added the framework to that page. Looks more professional now <grin>... Chazz (talk) 23:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you did! It looks much better. Thanks!!! :-)PNW Raven

 * Links: You did have the link to the DA correct, but it was a bit larger than it needed to be. Wikibooks has a hierarchical structure, with pages and subpages; so for instance the page "Harry Potter" is a subpage of the page "Major Events" which in turn is a subpage of the page "Muggle's Guide to Harry Potter". The notation "../" means "go up one page in the hierarchy", so if you are in "Harry Potter", "../" takes you up to "Major Events". Thus, since "Dumbledore's Army" is also a subpage of "Major Events", you only have to step up once before choosing your page, hence: ../Dumbledore's Army/. What you did was: Dumbledore's Army, which says: up to Major Events, up to Muggle's Guide, back down to Major Events, and down to Dumbledore's Army. It is equally valid, but a little more convoluted.
 * Where this is useful is reaching (e.g.) character pages: to reach the character Harry Potter, you would enter Harry Potter if you were on a subpage of Major Events, for instance. Do note that chapters in the books are actually three levels down, so the reference for the character Cho Chang from a book chapter would start with the ../ sequence three times: Cho Chang. Chazz (talk) 03:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I intend to spend more time learning the coding. It seems fairly simple, but just a bit time consuming memorizing it all. PNW Raven

Muggles' Guide Chapter Development
Not sure if you know this already or not, but this page lists the chapters we still need to work on. You're such a great worker around here so I thought I would point that out to you so that you might when you have time attack some of those chapters. Thanks a lot and write me back on my talk page if you have any further comments. -within focus 01:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Just got your message. I've been working on Pirate of the Caribbean pages, but I'm back to Harry Potter now. I'll get to these other pages. Thanks! PNW Raven 12:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Still eager as ever, I see... editing GoF chapter 37 before I've even gotten it finished... Chazz (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry, I didn't know you were working on it. I got the message above and just linked to the page with chapters that needed work and started with that one. Keep at it!!! PNW Raven 23:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Not a problem... more a point of interest rather than anything else. I'm hoping to finish that chapter tonight or tomorrow... and then probably HBP for a while, fixing up contents and links rather than creating new. Chazz (talk)

 * Oh: one quibble. You said ""Elipses" (. . .) are only used to denote text that has been deleted. It does not indicate a pause in someone's speech." First, that is, I think, ellipses (two l's); and second, Rowling uses it to denote either a pause or a trailing off at the end of a sentence, and whether that usage is technically correct or not, it has become accepted. Chazz (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is two l's. That was a typo, but unfortunately, you cannot go back on the History log to correct a mistake in your comments. It is perfectly acceptable to have ellipses trailing off the end of a sentence, as that indicates text has been deleted or is incomplete or if you are quoting it from the book that way. However, I'm unaware that it is acceptable style-wise to indicate a pause in general prose by using dots. This is not my opinion; I was specifically taught that you do not use ellipses this way. That is the purpose of the em dash. However, I'll dig a little deeper into other usages for this. PNW Raven 17:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm certainly not going to argue with your teacher about how it is supposed to be used. However, I do have a copy of GoF right in front of me, and that is how it is used – when Wormtail is speaking with many pauses because he's in pain from his missing hand, the pauses are indicated with ellipses, not em dashes. And much as I dislike to quibble – arguing this sort of fine point seems so trivial, somehow – when I have used ellipses, it is almost always a quote, because I have little use for it otherwise. Chazz (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned above that it is acceptable if it is being quoted from the book. However, it does not always translate well when taken out of context for a synopsis. I would use this as "sparingly" as possible and only to emphasize a particular point. Also, when using ellipses (according to my handbook anyway) always have a space between each dot. When trailing at the end of sentence, four dots are used, three to indicate the deleted text and a period to end the sentence. PNW Raven 14:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Spacing between dots is a pain because you need to use non-breaking spaces to keep it from breaking mid-ellipsis. So an ellipsis would be "&nbsp;.&nbsp;.&nbsp;." (as seen in the edit window) which would come out looking like " . . ." And of course, when I have used ellipses in book quotes, I have seen them get edited out. But trivialities like that are really not worth battling over, so I left them edited out.

 * This does seem to have the potential to degenerate into the sort of pointless argument that can derail a useful project . . . <grin> so I'm going to suggest we just leave it. Chazz (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I never argue—I debate. ;-) I restored the quoted text in Chapter 32 as it is in my (American) book. It uses ellipses and em dashes. Since spacing out ellipses appears to be a huge pain in the ass, I just did the dots together.

Common Nation
I am the Editor in Chief of Common Nation. Common Nation is updated with the lastest national and political news as well as family, social, and health coverage. Let me know what you think! Thanks. Asher Heimermann 00:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yet more Muggles
I see your recent edit to Prisoner of Azkaban chapter 7 that you have Harry actually changing the Boggart into a Dementor. Would you be so kind as to back that out, and also remove the associated question? Yes, that happens in the movie, but it does not happen in the book; in the book, Lupin deliberately steps in before the Boggart can change, because, as he later says, he didn't think the class was ready to be presented with Lord Voldemort.

By the same token, and to forestall any edits that you might add: in the movie, Hermione howls like a wolf to distract the changed Lupin right after the Shrieking Shack episode. In the book, that does not happen; Hermione is absolutely petrified that something she does could have an effect on her prior self. "You must not be seen!" is the watchword, and she lives by it. In the book, instead, the changed Sirius herds Lupin away from the kids, and Lupin bounds off into the Forest to escape. Chazz (talk) 02:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the info. It's been awhile since I've read the books, and I try to avoid using the movies as reference. I do remember that Hermione does not "howl" as it is shown in the movie. In fact, as I recall, Lupin sort of disappears from the main action. Also, if I get something wrong, feel free to take it out. That's what we're all here for--"checks and balances".

 * By the way, there was a PoA Study Question about the slogan the Weasley twins charmed onto Percy's Head Boy badge. However, there was no mention about it in the synopsis--at least not that I could find. I don't have my PoA book handy, and I do remember them calling him "Big Headed Boy" but I couldn't remember if that was what they put on the badge. I sort of vaguely worded it so there would be some reference to the study question, but it needs further clarification. Cheers!!! PNW Raven 12:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

There have been occasions in the past where I edited things out, and then had them re-appear; I suppose I should have mentioned them to the editor in question at the time I backed them out, but... In any event, your latest set of changes is an improvement over the original, so getting you to do the work was actually the Right Thing. <grin>

In PoA, the Twins tell Percy that they will be getting to King's Cross station in Ministry cars, with little flags on the fender with the letters HB, for Humongous Bighead. As Harry returns from collecting Ron's rat tonic (and overhearing the Weasley parent's conversation about Sirius), he finds the twins listening to Percy tearing his and Ron's room apart searching for the badge. "We've got it," Fred whispered to Harry. "We've been improving it." The badge now read Bighead Boy. This is the second time Fred had bewitched Percy's badge; at Christmas, in CoS, he had changed Percy's Prefect badge to read "Pinhead". Chazz (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Just so you know, I don't "intentionally" go back and edit something out that someone else has changed just because they changed it. I tend to look at something later and think, hmmm, that doesn't seem right or whatever and just make the change on the spot, totally forgetting what was there before. Just let me know when you do make changes and why it needs to stay that way. I'm totally reasonable!!! Honest. Your work here has been exemplary, and I could not have done this without having had such an excellent starting point. I may be stronger at streamlining prose, and that just comes from years of practice and being mercilessly edited by others far better than myself, but your technical and organizational abilities and attention to detail have been superb. Keep up the good work. PNW Raven 17:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem... we'll just have to try and keep it all civil, no? Anyway – I went back in there and tweaked a little, to get the order of events right. Hope I didn't mess things up too badly... Chazz (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back!
You seemed to be missing for a couple of weeks there... I missed the caw of the PNW Raven.

If I might make an impertinent suggestion? You've been going over DH for a while now... perhaps I could ask you to take a look at HBP instead? I've been filling in the chapter summaries there, and I have now completed the first 23. Of course, I think they are perfect. But all the same, a second eye across them would be a good thing, I think. Chazz (talk) 03:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm back! I was working on the general Wiki HP and the Deathly Hallows pages. I'll take a look at HBP, as well as D.H. HBP is perfect? Don't worry, I'll "fix" that. ;-)PNW Raven 12:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Quibbling at you now about DH chapter 5: it's not Moody's image at Grimmauld Place, but Dumbledore's, though we do hear Moody's voice. Also, while George loses an ear, it is Fred who dies in the final battle. Chazz (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I was actually going to check about Moody--whether it was his image or voice. I was relying on my memory--always a bad resource. Re: George, "I wrote what I meant, and meant what I wrote," to paraphrase from Alice in Wonderland. ;-) Yes, I know it was Fred who died. As soon as I read the part about George losing his ear, I was positive that Fred was done for. I'm certain Rowling was tipping readers off that George was going to lose a part of himself (that part being Fred). I didn't want to give away too much in the analysis, but I'll work on the wording and maybe even move this to a different location, but that is what I meant. OK, just keep whacking me over the head when I get it wrong. PNW Raven 02:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

 * <whack> Good catch! Though I think I'd still tweak the wording a little... rather than "another person" I think I'd say "the Weasley family". Chazz (talk) 03:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll be working on this. It's in a pretty rough form right now, but I just might change it to "the Weasley family" now that I moved it to The Greater Picture.PNW Raven 12:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

 * One more trivial thing... You keep misspelling Umbridge's name. It is "Dolores" with an O, which as it happens is the Spanish word for "Pains", as in the butt. I could write a small essay about why people in Spain and Mexico name their girl children "pains", but I will spare you -- you have enough of my verbiage to cope with of late. Chazz (talk) 03:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually never realized it was spelled that way or that it was Spanish for "pains." So appropriate. I just love how Rowling names her characters. And thanks for for "sparing" me from the essay. PNW Raven 13:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Some of the names are a bit over the top, actually... "Pius Thicknesse"? "Charity Burbage"? Actually, sometimes the names are just too appropriate. How could Lupin's parents have known to call him Remus? He wasn't a werewolf when he was born. I can understand Sibyll Trelawney's first name, as she came from a line of seers. Rubeus Hagrid? He's certainly ruddy enough, but who is the hag riding him? Would that be his Giant heritage? Or Rita Skeeter? And Skeeter -- talk about an appropriate name. Or for that matter, Cornelius Fudge. But she has said that the Weasleys are named in part because she is so fond of weasels. But milady wife, whose name is Jane, is upset that Rowling used her first name for Umbridge's middle name... she feels mildly insulted, as the only person in the series with her name is an evil bullfrog... Chazz (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha! I totally agree that it's way over the top! Being a children's book, it doesn't bother me so much, but one of my biggest peeves about literature and movies is characters who have such conveniently descriptive names that so accurately define their personalities. It's way overdone, and I wish writers would just stop doing this. PNW Raven 18:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

 * One quick note -- I haven't yet gotten past chapter 19 in OotP. I'm going to have to rework your reworks when I get out that far. I'll let you know when I've gone over the rest of that one... but if you look at OotP 20, you'll see how little there is there. And you'll also see that it's wrong. (Umbridge doesn't ask about giants specifically, because she doesn't know where Hagrid was.) Chazz (talk) 00:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

OotP is the least worked on Muggle's Guide book. I reworked what was there, which wasn't very much, and wrote most of the last one third of the chapters, with the idea of adding more detail later. My main concern was that there was something for each chapter. Just continue on, and I'll be checking as well. PNW Raven 14:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Conference
Seen this? within focus is suggesting maybe one of us two should think of attending. Thoughts? Chazz (talk) 00:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Wow, this is really cool! I'd love to see Wikibooks get more attention. I'd consider being a presneter, but it's impossible for me to commit to anything right now. I'm virtually trapped in Seattle because of my mother--she's elderly, handicapped, and it's constant trips to the E.R. every few months. Even if I arrange for someone to stay with her (she can't be left alone), if an extreme emergency cropped up, I'd have to cancel. I would be interested in attending as part of a group where it's not solely dependent on my presense. Portland is an easy commute for me.

 * BTW, my Wiki experience is really paying off. Last week my boss asked me to write an article on, get this, Precommercial thinning in PNW forests. He's a forestry professor. He had me go through all our old publications to glean info and write an intro to thinning for a new forestry web project we're doing. He was blown away by what I came up with (I know nothing about forestry) and he wants me to do more. Just one of the bennies of being a Wiki editor that could be mentioned at the conference. PNW Raven 14:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Questions...
Just thought I should give you a heads up. ChazzJr is deleting questions that are too easily answered (in his opinion). I've been following after and re-instating some of them, but not all. It was my understanding that the questions were to be study questions rather than review questions; they were to be an invitation to further thought, rather than the sort of thing that can be answered by a simple inspection of the summary. So for instance, in DH c33 the question "What shape was Snape's Patronus?" is pointless, but "Why was Snape's Patronus a doe? Can we guess the shape of Lily's Patronus?" is an interesting exercise. But... your thoughts are always welcome, of course, and we can debate if necessary. Chazz (talk) 01:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

 * It's certainly good to have thought-provoking questions, and I don't want too many overly simplistic ones. I do think it's beneficial, however, to have a variety for different reader levels (children through adults). I'm thinking that parents or teachers may want to use the easier ones for younger readers who can't quite handle the more speculative questions. PNW Raven 02:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

An intriguing idea. I would suggest that it might be a good idea in that case to order the questions from easy to speculative; at the moment, the ones I've seen seem to be pretty randomly ordered. Chazz (talk) 06:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Many questions, but definitely not all, have been ordered chronologically according to events in a chapter. That's mainly because I've been scanning each chapter as a whole, then work my way down thinking of questions for each paragraph with the idea that some will be weeded out later. However, these were interspersed among questions that were already there, so the order is not entirely chronological. I like the suggestion of an easy-to-difficult hierarchy, and maybe even labeling them as such by section, such as "Questions for Younger Readers" or whatever.PNW Raven 13:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned to ChazzJr the idea of putting the easy questions first; he seemed to think that was a good idea and is likely to pursue that course, rather than deleting the easy ones as he had been. Making sections could be a big undertaking – I think there are 199 chapters total, plus all the characters and all the magic... a large job. I'll see what withinfocus thinks... Chazz (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

 * OK! Let me know what withinfocus thinks. PNW Raven 18:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Eh, I don't think I would support new section creation, but I would support new sub-sections within the existing ones. Yes, it is a lot of work, but it doesn't have to be done all at once. What would you guys suggest the sub-headings be called? Maybe "Review" and "Critical Thinking"?

 * Also, I didn't know you were female, so I am now informed! -within focus 02:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I would go for "Review" and "Further Study", which seems to be the typical two for this sort of thing. I agree that creating new sections would not be good, but subsections would be just about right for this. As for the male / female confusion: I hope I did not insult with my assumptions... and I, too, am now better informed. Chazz (talk) 06:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sub-headings is what I had in mind. "Review" seems best to me. And NOT offended at all about the gender confusion. I actually get that all the time because my real first name is a bit gender-neutral. I get all types of mail--Mr. Ms. Miss, whatever, it doesn't matter to me. LOL Actually, I don't know what gender either of you are. . .??? PNW Raven 13:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I don't think that withinfocus has ever made a secret of the fact that his first name is Matt. My first name is Charles (hence Chazz, by way of the old New Yorker cartoonist Chas. Addams). ChazzJr has, of course, mentioned that he is my second son. My first son has not yet decided to edit Wikipedia. And now you know. <grin> Chazz (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Back to the topic... I have tentatively modified Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter/Books/Half-Blood Prince/Chapter 20 to have the sub-headings. Thoughts? Chazz (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Just checked, and I think that works great--something a variety of readers can utilize. PNW Raven 18:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous editors
There are actually two IP addresses that seem to be doing a lot of work -- the 205 one, which is you, and the 68 one, for whom I have also left a message. I had thought the 205 one might be someone you roped in, actually, as the IP address does resolve to somewhere near your hometown, while the 68 one resolves to Michigan. Thank you for letting me know it's you, anyway. Chazz (talk) 20:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Your User Page
This is totally optional of course, but could you create a user page for yourself? Wherever your name is listed, red text pops up. -within focus 12:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'm assuming that is not difficult to do. I'm not real great on this technical stuff. PNW Raven 12:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Nope, really simple. If you look at the top of this page, there is a red tab that says "user page". Click that and just put any old thing in there that you want people to know about you. You don't have to worry about funky formatting or anything; see user:ChazzJr for a simple example. Chazz (talk) 15:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Simple, yet refined. Thanks. -within focus 02:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I will add more to it later. LOL I was just getting it set up as a "place holder". PNW Raven 12:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Interview with Rowling
Just to keep you in the loop... Someone editied Dumbledore as a result of seeing this news story, and I reverted as vandalism, but it now seems that it was true. However... withinfocus and I are discussing how we deal with this revelation on our respective talk pages. A third opinion would be useful, I think... Chazz (talk) 17:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I kind of have to argue the "off the cuff" concept. If she felt she had to correct a scriptwriter at one point, then it must have been pretty central to who Albus was. And I think that it's about the only thing that would prevent the young Albus in correctly perceiving the equally young Grindelwald. I know that an older boy can have a certain glamour for a younger one that conceals the less savoury parts of his personality; but when they are of approximately equal age and experience, I don't think that would apply. Chazz (talk) 17:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Summaries?
Doing summaries again, are you? **sniff** I'm not needed... Seriously, though — good job. Thank you. Chazz (talk) 21:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You are definitely needed!! In fact, I was hoping you'd look at what I've written on Deathly Hallows and add the links. . . And I thought your additions to OotP and HPB quite good--just the right amount of detail. I just did some polishing, but I think your prose has really improved nicely. PNW Raven 22:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

 * So often I find I am interrupted before I reach the end of things, and as a result I've gotten a bit twitchy about actually getting things finished. Because of that, I was planning on wrapping OotP before I went on to DH... and as I only have five chapters of OotP left, that shouldn't take too long. It says here. And with the work you've been doing on DH, I hopefully will be able to just burn through that... there is light at the end of the tunnel! Or is that a train? Chazz (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

We'll get there! PNW Raven 00:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

 * And OotP is done. Just had a first look at DH chapter 11, and added a bunch of links. It looks good, but of course, I'm going to have to read through the chapter again to be certain that everything of import is there and in order. Chazz (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

OK! PNW Raven 00:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Finished review of chapter 11. From my biased viewpoint, it looks like you were spot on; only two tiny areas where I felt correction was necessary, plus the links of course. Thank you for that... excellent work. Chapter 12 tomorrow, if I can... and then onwards! Chazz (talk) 08:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Glad I got it mostly right. I have the book right next to me as I'm writing, going page-by-page. It's certainly no easy task sifting through it all and deciding what to put in or leave out. Up till now, I've concentrated on reworking what others have written, so I appreciate all the time, effort, and patience it takes to do this, although it's quite enjoyable as well. Well, onwards! PNW Raven 12:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

 * For what it's worth, likely this weekend I will have a stretch of time with no internet access, but will have a laptop. If that happens, I can write summaries for chapters 13 (which I note you've skipped) and 18; possibly also 24 and 25. It's a whole heap easier to create new than to edit when I don't have a live connection... but I can also just capture the page contents, and edit about eight chapters during that stretch. Whichever you prefer... I'm pretty easy. Chazz (talk) 15:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yikes! No internet access? The horror! Thank god for wireless cafes and libraries. I just finished Chapter 17 (I think it's pretty good) and have already started Chapter 18 offline, and will continue with that. Maybe we can split up 24 and 25. Please feel free to do 13. I was planning to it later, but the others interested me more. PNW Raven 15:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

 * My mother is now living alone, since my father passed away; I visit her every month, to keep things running over there. The problem is that there is a two-hour ferry ride each way, and the Ferry Corporation has not yet seen fit to install internet access even on their big boats. So I typically have two two-hour stretches where I perforce edit offline. I generally can do one or two chapter summaries each way... which means that if you want to leave 13 and 25 to me, I likely will have them in place by (our) midnight Saturday. Sunday afternoon, I'll take four to six chapters and bring them up to spec offline, if I can. Almost there... Chazz (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I sympathize regarding watching over your mother. I know how hard this is. Sounds like a good plan for the chapters. I'll do 18 and 24. Almost there. . . PNW Raven 17:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Looks like 22 needs a lot of work as well. I'll try for 13 and 22, and 25 by Sunday, unless you want the headache. Chazz (talk) 22:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 12 and 16 are done. Only minor adjustments needed... excellent work. Chazz (talk) 08:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Chapter 18 analysis and stuff
I would have commented on your talk page, but I wasn't sure that it was you that was writing that. There seem to have been about two or three different IPs editing with your style today, and I wasn't certain they were you. Your IP address evidently changes fairly frequently. In any event, the way you split things up looks good, but I think it needed a tad more information below the spoiler. I have re-tweaked it; hope I didn't wreck things.

I have done 13, 22, and 23. 23 looked like it was going to be easy, but it appeared that someone had done it from memory and the event order was scrambled, which made it hard to straighten out. If you still want to do 24, let me know; if I haven't heard from you by about noon, I'll likely try to fit 24 and 25 in on the ferry ride back.

Oh – and my mother seems to be doing all right. There is some trouble, as always, with technology, but she seems to be handling the regular parts of living just fine. Chazz (talk) 06:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Sounds like you've got your hands full... don't sweat the small stuff, and Wikibooks is definitely small stuff. I'll work on 25, and try for 26, 27, and maybe 28 offline. We are nearing the end of this bit now... Chazz (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been dealing with the "old ladies" for a long time, so it's gotten pretty routine. Wikipedia is my escape from it all. It really is something I enjoy very much and always look forward to working on. We are almost there. I'm looking forward to your "Shell Cottage" synopsis. There's a few later chapters that need work; I'm going to work on those and then start more on analysis. There's a lot of good stuff, but want to tie things together more. PNW Raven 21:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Shell Cottage is going in shortly... but fair warning: when I ran out of stuff to do in 25, I went on to 26 and 27. I will be combining your changes to 26 with mine as best I can, but I may lose some of your deltas... I'll try not to, but it's tricky. Stay tuned... but I'll be dropping 25 and 27 in first, because mine are the only changes that have happened to those two since I grabbed them this noon. Chazz (talk) 04:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Right: 26 is merged. Would you be so kind as to take a look at it and see if I got everything?
 * Oh -- and thank you for your kind words about 13. That was a bit of a pain to write... Chazz (talk) 05:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Just as a follow-up... three IP addresses? Actually, it seems, only two, but neither of them the one you had used earlier. If you look at the edit history for DH chapter 18, you'll see that on 3 November, it was edited by you, me, and two anonymous editors. I believe both of the anon editors were you, the style seems right. You'll also note that one is a 67 address, one is a 66 address, and the one where I posted earlier is a 68 address. Residential providers will often change IPs every few days, or even more frequently... and it looks like yours changed sometime between 0620 and 0742 on the 3rd. Chazz (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Fenrir
Being away from my books at the moment, I can't comment authoritatively. I'll look at the book this evening and confirm, but I can't believe that the Death Eaters would want an uncontrollable werewolf in their midst, I don't think Fenrir would use Wolfsbane potion, he seems a little too focused on the defenders of Hogwarts to be transformed, it's unlikely Harry would be able to recognize him transformed as he has only ever seen Fenrir's human shape, and it's certainly true that whenever we see Lupin, he is human. Chazz (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll look this over again too when I get home, but by the description, it strongly seemed to indicate that he was transformed at the time. I was wondering if this was actually an error on Rowling's part, but it seemed like if Fenrir, or any werewolf was transformed, then Lupin should have been too. Interesting thought about whether Fenrir used the Wolfsbane potion or not. Even if he did, he would probably be as vicious and bloodthirsty as he normally was, he would just know what he was doing at the time. PNW Raven 21:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

 * The exact words are, "A grey blur that Harry took for an animal sped four-legged across the hall to sink its teeth into one of the fallen. [para] 'NO!' shrieked Hermione, and with a deafening blast from her wand Fenrir Greyback was thrown backwards... He hit the marble banisters and struggled to return to his feet." Chapter 32, "The Elder Wand", in my edition page 519; note nothing about fur. Again in "The Forest Again" Fenrir is skulking, chewing his long nails; if he was transformed, those would be claws. So I'm going to stick by my statement: Fenrir is acting like a wolf because he feels like it, not because he has transformed. Chazz (talk) 07:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to leave the analysis as is except the part about Harry being able to recognize Fenrir because he is in his human form and he wouldn't know what he looks like as a werewolf. It actually doesn't say in the book that Harry recognizes him at all. It is the author's voice that identifies him as Fenrir. I also rechecked the description in my book and it says "gray blur". So you're right about that. However, claws VS nails. Not sure about that. Canines, which would include werewolves, are also referred to as having nails. When I had a dog, the vet or groomer trimmed her "nails" (their words), so that term could probably apply to either state Fenrir is in, I think. PNW Raven 12:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

 * And I quibble: Seems to me that "nails" is the term used when the animal is domesticated, "claws" when it is not. I'm certain that a recent inquest, where someone was killed by either a bear or a wolf pack, did use the term "claws of wolves" when describing an injury. Also: Dogs' nails tend to be blunted by their habits of walking over concrete surfaces; wolves' claws, especially werewolves one would think, would have sharpened ends still, so they would be more of a weapon. On the author's voice: Which of the Trio has seen Fenrir in wolf shape? The author can't tell us that it is Fenrir if none of the main characters recognizes him. And I unquibble. Chazz (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Nagini
DH chapter 34: Do Ron and Hermione already know that Nagini is the sixth (as far as they know) Horcrux? I'll check this as well, but I'd appreciate a pointer to where Harry had told them. Chazz (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You might be right about this. I was thinking that they all knew earlier on that Nagini was the Horcrux. I'll also check into this more.PNW Raven 21:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

 * And that is why you shouldn't trust your memory. My memory is pretty good... but apparently not good enough. Thanks for the correction. Chazz (talk) 07:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

We're gong to have to change our names to "Checks" and "Balances"! PNW Raven 12:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

DH chapter 30
An order of events correction: I made this change once, and you seem to have changed it back, so rather than getting into an edit war, I'll ask you to change it one more time...

McGonagall does summon the other three heads of house, and Flitwick and Sprout show up while she's dueling Snape; but it is not until after the fight has moved into the classroom and Snape has done a flit that there is any mention of Slughorn, at least in my edition. He's puffing along so far behind, likely from having to climb the stairs from the dungeons, that he doesn't even show until the excitement is nearly over.

Hope I'm not being too starchy here... Chazz (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

 * UK/Canadian books versus US books? Would not surprise me at all... In any event, I will check, and if it turns out mine is different, we might want to show both versions to forestall later edit wars, no? Chazz (talk) 00:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

 * We here in Canada got the UK edition, word for word. I think the US editors thought that the US in general wouldn't get a lot of the UK shadings of meaning... at one point, Ron says of Dumbledore, "I told you he was barking." In the UK, that means "extremely eccentric", with the implication "harmless", and there isn't an equivalent term in US English. At another place, Dumbledore offers someone a plate of "chipolatas", which are sausages, though I think few in the US would understand that. I think the differences are chalked up to "translation"... two countries separated by a common language. Chazz (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

There's definitely different colloquial terms, but my feeling is they should have left it British and just included a footnote at the bottom explaining the different meanings. They lost a great opportunity to educate one culture about another. PNW Raven 00:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

 * I stand corrected. Slughorn is mentioned... but in my own defen c e (another Britishism) I will say that he looks like an afterthought on that paragraph, which is why I missed him. Chazz (talk) 03:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Editors tend to dislike putting footnotes in fiction. It was done a lot in the 19th and early 20th century writing, but has fallen out of favour. Some works come with a glossary -- Frank Herbert's Dune for instance -- but even there a lot of words are understandable from context... Of course, I'm Canadian, so I just sail through these British things, they have been taught to me from the beginning. (Except chipolatas -- I had to look that one up.)

 * The vagueness of the narration may, in fact, be one of the strengths of the books. We don't, in honesty, need to know that Fenrir was (or was not) transformed; it creates a little less dissonance if he wasn't, but it doesn't matter. We don't know whether or not Bellatrix is dead, because while she falls, the word "dead" is never used. The fact that she was hit in the heart implies death, but that is uncertain. But what that means is that the series will continue to reward a re-read; the more times you read it, the more you see in there.

 * For what it's worth: I believe all the chapter summaries are now complete and up to standard. I will be going over them again in a while -- possibly a long while -- but for the next while I'll be concentrating on other areas of the book. Chazz (talk) 23:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

New Page Freeze
Please see here and here for some news on creating a PDF for our book. If you need to create any new pages in the book or see one created, please tell me about it. Thanks. -within focus 03:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Redlinks
Raven, a just a word of warning. withinfocus asked for a bot to turn all our relative links absolute, to make the PDF version of the book easier to generate. Whiteknight created a bot to make that happen, and the bot messed up slightly. If you see a redlink, and it is of the form Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter/Somewhere/valid/, let me know, but leave it alone for now. We may be able to fix it with a revised bot, but we'll need to have the original messed-up version to start from. Chazz (talk) 04:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

 * I've been talking with Whiteknight about this, and it looks like an easy enough fix... he says he'll hammer on it a bit tonight. I'll keep you posted... but it was disconcerting to see a whole page turn red like that. Chazz (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Looks like Whiteknight has successfully completed the reformat. Now to see if we can make it into PDF... Chazz (talk) 01:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Usage
I didn't know whether we could see page stats on Wikibooks, so I asked withinfocus, and he said, basically, no. Breaking it down into English, there are three ways we can find page statistics, and these are:
 * 1) Raw page statistics on the Wikimedia servers. This is inherently unreliable, because many pages are actually cached on the "squids" (proxy servers), and don't actually hit the web servers. So for instance, the Wikibooks front page may have a million hits in a day, but only a few hundred of those get through; it being such a popular page, most of the time the page is served from the cache in the proxy servers.
 * 2) Wikimedia tool server. This has been turned off by the foundation, apparently due to server loading. I believe Whiteknight may have asked to have it turned back on, but to no avail.
 * 3) Third-party, like Google Analytics. Unfortunately, the statistics gathered by Google Analytics are sufficiently detailed that many in the Wikimedia Foundation are opposed to them, as it seems to violate the Wikimedia privacy policy. Note that we can't see that information, but it is collected by Google, and it is unknown what they do with it.

So I'm afraid that there isn't really any way that we can find out whether we are preaching to a full house or to a void... Chazz (talk) 21:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Revision: Whiteknight does have some information, that he posted on withinfocus' Talk page. Chazz (talk) 22:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back...
I have to admit I was wondering if you had gone off and left us. Welcome back to the ranks of the editors, Raven. Chazz (talk) 18:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm back! Well, I actually never left, just been very busy and overwhelmed with life lately. An elderly family friend passed away a few months ago, and I was the Power of Attorney and now the executrix of her estate. Then my mother got very sick about a month ago and is still recovering in the hospital. She's doing better, but it's going to be awhile before she's back home. I was also doing some work on the Pirates of the Caribbean and It Takes A Thief (reality TV show) Wiki pages. Anyway, thanks for the warm welcome back, I really appreciate it, and you'll be seeing me more regularly. I've been wondering what you've been up to. PNW Raven (talk) 23:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Ah, well... it's been busy here, as well, though not as busy as you have been. No, I've been, in my methodical way, going through the characters to establish their roles in the books. The end is in sight -- I've just finished with Rubeus Hagrid and am now ready to start with the S's; though I've had to leave the Trio and several semi-major characters out until I can re-read the series. (The Trio in particular are going to be rough, as I have to super-condense their roles.)

 * I'm very sorry to hear of your troubles; hope things even out soon. Chazz (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the good wishes, and I'll be sure to check out what you've been working on. PNW Raven (talk) 01:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Stable Versions
Raven, hi -- good to see you're still around.

You may have noticed this thing that's showing up on a lot of pages lately that says "There are no reviewed revisions of this page"? Wikibooks has added the capability to mark pages as up to standard or otherwise, and Matt and I are currently trying to determine what "standard" is so that we have a criterion. There are apparently four levels of quality. Editors can mark an article as being levels one through three, and Reviewers can mark it as being, I guess exemplary. For one reason or another, I seem to have been made an Editor, though I haven't yet marked any articles because I don't have a criterion. Matt, of course, is administrator and so is also Reviewer.

Could you stop by Matt's talk page, and add your opinions? I really think you would be a great help to us.

And can I also suggest that you stop by WB:RFA and ask for Editor status at least? Again, IMHO you could be a great help to us that way.

thanks. Chazz (talk) 21:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm definitely still around! I did noticed the message at the top of the page and was wondering what it was all about. I will stop by Matt's Talk Page and add some comments. I'll also look into Editor status. I'd like that. Thanks for suggesting it. PNW Raven (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have indeed reviewed this, and I will make comments. Sorry for the delay. I've been very distracted--my mother's been in/out of the hospital and nursing home (she's in again). Anyway, I'll be giving my input on this.PNW Raven (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Seems Matt has put the discussion here... just so we are all (literally) on the same page. Chazz (talk) 01:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Oh, and... if there are three drop-down boxes and a [review] button on the bottom of your view of a page, then you are either editor or reviewer already. Chazz (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

OK!!! Thanks. PNW Raven (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Did that. Just a note that the highest level is for Featured Books (which should be obvious). We're still figuring stuff out, so feel free to ask questions & make suggestions if you think something isn't the way it should be. Good luck. — <b style="color:#309;">Mike.lifeguard</b> | talk 21:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm sure I will have lots of questions. Thanks!PNW Raven (talk) 21:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The discussion about review standards seems to have basically come to a halt... but I have seen no input from you, and I would seriously like to get that before I start marking pages as reviewed. Could you confirm that you've looked at it, and that you are OK with what Matt and I have worked out? Thank you ever so much. Chazz (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I have indeed reviewed this. Sorry for the delay in posting comments. I've been distracted by mother; she's been in/out of the hospital/nuring home since July. She's in again. Anyway, I'll be giving my input on this. I promise.PNW Raven (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I think I said it before, but I'll say it again: Don't sweat the small stuff... and this is certainly small stuff compared to what else you have going on. Take your time, please. Chazz (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Langlock
Forgive me for asking, but do you have a reference that indicates that Langlock is for a specific subject? I've not seen it used that way... and we don't know that Langlock is the static jinx left at Grimmauld Place by Moody. The one time Harry uses Langlock it seems to be general rather than specific.

Oh, and your comments about the Black Lake from aeons ago: I finally found out where that came from. It is referred to repeatedly as The Black Lake in the film GOF. Chazz (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Hi! I'm snowed in here! Anyway, I went to the Langlock page from a "Tongue-Tying Curse" link on one of the synopsis pages. I can't remember specifically which page. I assumed this must be the official name for the Tongue-Tying Curse, but it seemed odd. Are they the same? I had read an explanation for the Tongue-Tying curse on another web site--maybe Sparknotes???? and was remembering it from that. My understanding is that the Tongue-Tying curse ties a person's tongue into a knot, preventing them from speaking about a specific thing. What is your take on the Tongue-Tying curse explanation? I'm a little confused about it. So would appreciate any help. If they are two different curses, then the link is incorrect.

Yes, the Black Lake was specifically a movie reference, and therefore should not be used here. PNW Raven (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Snowed in here, too. I'm an east coast boy originally, and it seems odd to me that only three inches of snow can paralyze a city as big as Seattle... but I guess, if it is so rare that you don't recognize the white stuff falling out of the sky... And of course I'm very twitchy. My mother is in hospital in Victoria, where there is also a heavy snowfall warning, and I can't get over there to visit her or tend to her house and dog...

 * The only summary page that links to Langlock is DH9. The original DH9 text does say "tongue-tying curse" rather than "Langlock", and the effects are subtly different. I'll have to go into HBP and see where Langlock is mentioned in the original text (apart from HBP19, where it is used but not mentioned in the summary, along with Peeves). I should also mention the Undetectable Extension Charm, I suppose, which is what Hermione uses to make her beaded bag larger on the inside than on the outside. In any event: I will deal with it. Chazz (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, that explains it; no wonder I was confused! Thanks for clearing that up. Re the weather. It's not so much the acutal snow, but that it's usually very wet and slippery, then freezes over the streets. Seattle is so hilly, that the icy roads are just treacherous. I'm sure it's much the same where you live. Sorry to hear about your mother. Mine is in a nursing home right now for rehab, but I can't even get up to see her, the streets are so bad. I've been home since last Wednesday. Stay safe.PNW Raven (talk) 23:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletions by an IP address
This morning early there were a couple of deletions of text from the analysis area of GoF:23. Basically the idea was right but the execution was wrong: the text in question did constitute a spoiler, so probably should not have been in Analysis but in Greater Picture. I reinstated the text in GP myself a bit later. But I am curious: I see you're doing a lot of GoF work now, and I was wondering: were those edits yours? Like me, you sometimes get logged out by surprise, and those edits are tied to an IP address only... Chazz (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Hi Chazz. Well, I'm pretty certain those edits were not mine. I am still logged in, and haven't gotten unlogged for awhile now, and certainly not today. I'll take a look at this, but glad you reinstated it if you feel it belonged in the GP.

 * Update - OK, I just checked this, and this is not a chapter I've worked on recently. PNW Raven (talk)

 * Okay... good to know. Not that I really suspected you of deleting ad lib, but it's good to know I hadn't messed up your plans, if you had any for that page. Chazz (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

DH revisions
I see that you are now working on GoF analysis. Is it time for me to go through DH and review it? Are you about done with DH? Chazz (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

 * I think DH is pretty much done and ready to be critiqued, although I'll continue to tweak it and add additional analysis as it occurs to me.PNW Raven (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Of course, now that I've mentioned it, I see you're back in there... not a big problem, just don't want us both to be editing at once, that can cause confusion. Chazz (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

 * I panicked! Of course you know I'm going to do one "last" check forever and ever . . . I'll try to avoid bumping into you at the same time.PNW Raven (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Featured Book
I'm pleased as well, but I'm a little tentative about it. The Featured Book template was added to the MG by a user who had signed up only two days before and only had about a dozen edits under his belt. And we don't seem to be on the Featured Books list, though I agree we should be. I've let it lie, particularly as withinfocus chose to make a feature books advert page, rather than remove the notice... but I am a little unsure of exactly how we became featured. Chazz (talk) 07:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

MG:DH Disapparating from dragonback
I have to argue about Harry and Hermione Disapparating from Bathilda's window. As I read it, they are already on the ground before Hermione Disapparates them away. I believe that the only person who was seen to Apparate from a location analogous to the dragon's back was Mundungus from the back of Moody's broom; and Fletcher can evade capture by a house-elf for a prolonged stretch, so it's safe to assume that his escape skills are quite finely honed.

I can undo that bit of editing, of course, but that would lead to an edit war, even if only a brief one. Chazz (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Actually, in Godric's Hollow, it was Hermione who was doing the Apparating; I can think of only one occasion when the three of them Apparate separately. Apart from the trip from Malfoy Manor to Shell Cottage, there is always one of them, usually Hermione (who, after all, passed her Apparation test on the first try), bringing the others by side-along Apparation. It might be that Hermione was afraid that they would get separated if they tried to Apparate to a safe location, and couldn't get close enough to the others to get the necessary hold on them for side-along Apparation.

 * Oh, and welcome back, eh? It's been a while since we've seen your dulcet keystrokes... Chazz (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

GoF revisions
I see you've been going over GoF again... I was doing the same, rather more laboriously, and had gotten up to GoF:28. You seem to have started at 1 and are quickly overtaking me... should I stop until you're done? Or did you want to hold off for a while and let me finish? Oh, and good to see you're at it again. Chazz (talk) 04:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My father, who was a scientist, used to say, "It's not the science that is hard, it's the living." Sounds like you've had your fair share of that... Don't let me stop you editing, we do need your touch. I've finished GoF:28, and will probably reach the end of GoF:37 in about two weeks; if you could do your stuff up to GoF:28, then concentrate on PS and CoS for that time, that would be excellent. And always, if something leads you back into something else, by all means follow the link. Chazz (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, my father was a scientist and an editor of scientific journals, so I come by my language skills honestly, I guess... My mother was also trained scientifically, got as far as her M.Sc., before deciding that the office politics in universities was not for her. So I guess I get it from both sides. Curiously, my kid brother is much more of a prose poet, selecting the perfect word to make a point instead of hammering it into the ground the way I tend to; he has a book of short stories and an autobiographical work published, and a novel coming out, and his writing style is completely different. Chazz (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say that I have wrapped up this pass through GoF. I don't know what I'll do next... probably OotP. I will keep you posted. Chazz (talk) 07:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the update. I've been working on Half-Blood, but will get back to GoF and others. Keep me posted.PNW Raven (talk)

Back again, I see...
Good to see you're back looking at the Muggles' Guide. I think I should mention that I haven't quite finished my overhaul of OotP; real-life nonsense has made that take longer than I had planned, so I'm still on chapter 37 with 38 still to go. Hoping to finish those this weekend... if you can hold off on those last two chapters for a couple of days it would be greatly appreciated. Chazz (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the vote of confidence... I can't help thinking that much of what I write in the analysis and GP sections is blindingly obvious. I mean, I have no training in English at all, so clearly (with tongue in cheek) my opinions and observations can not be worth anything... There will, I presume, be a time when we can look at the Muggles' Guide and say that everything that needs to be done has been done at least once, but that time is still a long way off. Chazz (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A thought on reworking the character page for Harry: We really need to ultracondense the story, much as was done for PS. Rather that tweaking what's there in CoS and later, it would be much better to rip it out and see if you can condense it to eight to twelve paragraphs per book, hitting only the real high points. I had planned to do that while I was doing character work, but I've gotten sidetracked by the chapter summaries... still in mid re-read for the semi-important character summaries (Dean, Seamus, Pansy, Draco, and like that).

 * Same ultra-condensation idea applies to Ron and, possibly, to Hermione, though I seem to recall that Hermione may have already had that treatment. We may also have to do some refining of Dumbledore, Snape, and Voldy, who are similarly all through the series. Chazz (talk) 08:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Right — I hereby declare that my latest pass through OotP is finished. And just in time, too, as I see you've started work on it again... Chazz (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

 * I'll hold off on looking at the Harry Potter character page for a little while... I see that you edited it again a half hour after asking me to take a look at it, and I really don't want to collide with you – we've done that in the past, no need to do it again. Chazz (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Small issue in Chamber of Secrets...
Welcome back, again, and I hope you don't mind if I quibble at you a little... Twice now you've changed a tense in the analysis of CoS:7. Specifically, Hermione suggests that Draco had bought his way onto the team before he calls her a mudblood. Granted, in that section of the analysis, the order is somewhat confusing, as we talk about what Draco said before we talk about what Hermione said to trigger it; but if we leave it as "Hermione says that..." instead of "Hermione had said that...", that gives the impression, at least in the analysis, that Hermione's accusation was in response to Draco's insult, rather than it being the other way around. The best correction might be to discuss Hermione's speech before Draco's, but that may require splitting the paragraph in two. If you want to do that, that might be for the best; but I don't know if there is enough there about what Hermione said to make it worth a whole paragraph, and moving her part in this to the front of the paragraph without splitting it does seem to give us a two-topic paragraph, which would be ungainly. Your thoughts? Chazz (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Hi there! I have no quibbles at all about changing that back. Sorry, I hadn't check the history logs, and did not see your messages about this, otherwise I would not have changed it again. I was actually unaware I was changing it more than once. I tend to just keep going over the same text again and again, and if I see something I think needs changing, then I do, without always realizing it had been changed by someone else. Yes, you're quite right, it should be in the past tense as Draco is responding tp Hermione after she made her comment. Thanks! PNW Raven (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Harry Potter World (Orlando)
Actually... I hadn't thought about that. No, what we're doing is not exactly fanac, and so it likely had slipped under the radar; we're actually trying to figure out, to a certain extent, how it was done, rather than jumping into it with all four feet. We have been trying for a more scholarly approach, rather than the breathless worship many fan sites seem to show... and why that should make us ineligible, I don't know, but I can see how it would drop us down the roster a few notches.

I have my own opinions about the whole thing... but don't see much point in sharing them. Unless you were to ask, of course. Chazz (talk) 04:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to mention: along with keeping track of the other stuff happening around the Guide, I'm also still plodding along through Half-Blood Prince... shouldn't be too much longer before I'm done with that, and can move on to the final book. Chazz (talk) 04:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Flamel
But of course he is Nicolas, he is Dutch. I guess I never really thought about that when I was editing... but it seems we have it wrong on the site, and that spurious 'h' got in there and was never corrected. (And yes, it is Nicolas in the Canadian / UK editions as well.)

Though WithinFocus offered to put my name up for admin status (and this would be the third time someone offered), I had to turn him down; my overall available time seems to be more limited now than it was before, and I don't see that trend changing, and I really can't afford the additional hit that becoming admin would incur. So I'll stay just plain chazz for a while longer... Chazz (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Actually, by the first time it was offered to me, I had noticed that pattern: heavy contributor, admin, gone... and I didn't want any part of it. Granted, there are exceptions, I point at Adrignola as a counter-example, but they are few and far between. Plus, there is the fact that becoming admin is tantamount to painting a great big target on your back, "Vandalize me!" -- I have the Admins' talk pages on my watchlist for various reasons, and the amount of vandalism they get is, relatively speaking, amazing. So, yeah, not something I want. But again, thanks for the vote of would-be confidence [grin]. Chazz (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Half-Blood Prince
Looks like I've about finished this latest pass of book 6... finally. I did mention that I'm rather over-committed now, haven't I? Let me know if you want me to cast an eye over book 1 sometime soon... meanwhile, I'll go and hack my way through book 7 as best I can. Chazz (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So I've made a full pass now through Philosopher's Stone -- the usual scattering of typos and missed links, nothing to worry about in my not-so-humble opinion. Off to Deathly Hallows next, I guess. Chazz (talk) 06:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Umm... were you going to do DH, or should I be starting on that? We can't both work on it at the same time; with our differing work styles, we're bound to collide several times a day. Chazz (talk) 00:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to ban you from working on DH... particularly not for the length of time it would take me to actually finish up there: clearly when there is significant editing to be done, day-to-day work slows me down to less than one chapter a day, sometimes as little as one chapter a week. Maybe, though, look at the edit history and see if I've already been through; usually I'll hit a chapter hard (300+ characters one way or the other) between one and three times in the space of a day and then move on to the next. And if I've done that to chapter n and not yet to chapter n+1, and it's not early morning -- you seem to like to edit at the crack of dawn for me -- perhaps that would be a good time to leave chapter n+1 alone. Chazz (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Rambam Rashi seems to be something of a grammar purist; he came in, started at the beginning, tweaked a few minor things in each book over the course of about a month, and then departed and I've never seen him again. I believe he read his talk page -- I left some comments there which were acted upon -- but he did not reply. If I had to guess, I would say he was likely from someplace like India where an extreme precision of English is taught, but the way he corrected usage is not the way an actual English speaker would use it, so I have to think English is his second language.
 * His use of "whom" mildly bothers me as well, particularly since JKR never uses the word herself, but it seems harmless, like dead yeast left in beer, and so I left it. The deliberately archaic "To whom it may concern" is, quite frankly, the only place I'd ever seen that usage as well, but being Canadian I can't speak for British use. As for my own writing, I know it exists, I know the rules for when it is meant to be used, but I find that its very unfamiliarity bobbles the reader slightly, so I never use it. Chazz (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Grammar / usage et cetera
As you point out, the book is British, and so we should keep with British grammar where possible. And in fact, it is the Minister for Magic who heads up the Ministry of Magic -- just checked in my copies of HBP and PS, respectively, which being Canadian do use the British text. If you find any other ministers of magic, do please feel free to change them back. Chazz (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

 * I'm pretty sure whom (wiktionary) is still valid in English and have never heard of it being phased out. – Adrignola talk contribs 15:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

In re: Tonks
I had forgotten that aspect of the timeline, actually. Yes, it's only a week or less, and so yes, she is certainly pregnant at Harry's birthday party, but likely has not yet told Remus, possibly because she is not 100% sure. (You can miss a period and still be uncertain...) I still believe that he transformed in the interval and scented her pregnancy, which may have been the confirmation for her, and the reason she admitted it to him. Feel free to make that change...

As for time of day, I notice that your edits have shifted earlier on the clock. Are you still a PNW Raven? Or have you moved east? Chazz (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

2843
Hey Raven, hope all is well with you. It's been a while since I last wrote here but I left a thanks message on Chazz's talk page and want you to see it. Thanks for all your hard work! -<font color="#000000">within <font color="#7A7A7A">focus 14:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible new subsection...
A thing that repeatedly occurs to me is that there possibly would be a home for "aphorisms", likely as a sub-section of Major Events. Specifically, I can think of two that reverberate through the entire series, and keep being nagged by the thought that there should be a central place where all these reverberations can be written up. The two I am thinking of are both from Dumbledore (of course): at the end of the first book, where he says "To the well-organized mind, death is but the next great adventure." And at the end of the second, where he says "It is our choices, Harry, far more than our abilities, that determine who we really are." The first of those is echoed quite strongly in the seventh book, in Harry's eventual thoughts of the Hallows, but has an ongoing echo throughout the series, most notably in the fourth book (where Harry is the stronger wizard because he is prepared for death), and in the sixth (Dumbledore's preparations). The latter can be seen in Harry, in James Potter, in Tom Marvolo Riddle, and in Dumbledore himself.

I sort of unilaterally added a section in Major Events for The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore; this one is questionable enough that I figured I ought to get a little more input before just bolting something in. Your thoughts? Chazz (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Actually, there is already a page on Themes at Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter/Books/Deathly Hallows/Themes, though perhaps that should be broken into separate pages for each theme. There are only three items on there at the moment, and they are all three somewhat sketchy, though, so breaking it into subpages at this point is a bit premature.

 * There is bound to be overlap between themes and aphorisms, because the aphorisms are actually written to point up the themes, I think. But as we're approaching from different angles, I don't see that as a big problem.

 * My initial thought was to have Aphorisms as a section of Major Events, and have specific aphorisms listed there to fit into the Major Events template. But I am not wedded to that idea. Your thoughts? Chazz (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Sorry for my long silence; I've been trying to think up alternatives.

 * Changing "Major Events" would be a big deal, because it would be a template change and I'd have to enlist someone with a bot to change all references to anything that was a major event. It would be possible, but we'd have to be ruddy sure that was what we wanted to do. That said, if we could think up a more inclusive name, I'd be in favour; "Major Events" doesn't seem to cover continuous things like prefects and Quidditch, organizations like Dumbledore's Army and Death Eaters, or overviews like aphorisms and themes. But for the life of me, I can't think up a reasonable name for such a section. Story Artifacts? Major Story Points? Chazz (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Cross links
Raven, frankly, I'm not the one to ask about this. I don't know what policy is about cross linking, that should be referred to an admin, possibly Adrignola. Personally, though, I don't know even if we want the sort of attention that linking to fan sites would bring us. We've had problems in the past with people adding characters who appear only in fan publications, and while we are putting together a more or less complete detailing of the Potter universe from the ten published books, that is not our main purpose; we're trying to make a more scholarly work, one that analyzes the work rather than simply regurgitating or expanding it. With withinfocus' departure, I have become something of the control editor on this project, and already I'm finding time that I wanted to use for writing is being taken up with monitoring other people's edits. A sudden influx of new editors, unfamiliar with WB's standards and traditions, quite likely would overwhelm me. I don't object to having people find us; we do get a number of new editors over time, and I welcome them as much as I can. But the sheer volume of editing that would, I expect, result from such a crosslink would almost certainly be too much for us... Chazz (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I don't have a policy to pull out of my pocket at the moment on it, but external links ought to go to sites that provide something of value beyond what the textbook can. It shouldn't be there simply for promotion. Maybe one of those sites has compiled something that we can't host here, such as a video.  If you select one that attracts the right audience, cross linking may provide a mutually beneficial relationship. – Adrignola talk 22:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Chazz, I understand your concerns and considered them as well. I also worry that an influx of new editors would affect the overall quality, result in unnecessary changes, open it up to constant vandalism, make it less professional and scholarly, as well as put an unnecessary strain on you; I don't want you to become an "out-of-control" control editor! However, I don't want to be so hidden that those who would find value in the Muggles Guide are left unaware that it exists. If we could target the right audience (particularly young readers), I think it could be beneficial, though I agree we should be cautious and selective about who we aim for.PNW Raven (talk) 23:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Adrignola, I think you misunderstand. The suggestion is to provide incoming links -- post or promote the Muggles' Guide on various Potter fan sites. There is, in my humble opinion, very little there that would enhance the understanding of Potter-as-literature, but fans, with an encyclopedic knowledge of the Potter series, might be able to add something here.

 * But I do worry about it, I really do. While MuggleNet does have some quite insightful analysis (suggesting that Kreacher had accompanied Regulus into the Horcrux cave, for instance, shortly after the publication of book 6), an awful lot of what is on that site is extensions to canon and discussion of those extensions. My worry is that some people on fan sites would see us as a blank canvas on which they could write their fanfic. It would only take a handful, and we'd be looking at a full-time job of cleanup. Chazz (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Interesting. Well, I was thinking that, based on the section heading of "cross links", that links would be posted at both sites.  If it's incoming only, well, I don't really have any say as to what goes on at other sites.  If you post a link and we get a lot of juvenile vandalism, I'd institute warnings and blocks as usual.  If you post a link and we get a lot of good new users, I'd welcome them as usual.  It all comes down to you guys. – Adrignola talk 16:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

 * The problem is that what would be happening would be good-faith edits that simply failed to fit the scope of the project, taking it in non-academic directions. And that would be hard to detect... would fall almost entirely on me and Raven. Chazz (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I would assume most links would be two-way, as the neighboring web site usually wants to be listed as well. Chazz, I think you have made some very good insights. My own preference would be to restrict this web site only to established editors, much as Wikipedia does on high-profile pages that are subject to frequent vandalism, the Harry Potter ones included. As I see it, yes, we want to protect the integrity and quality of the Muggles Guide, but it also creates a dilemma of sorts. We have a well-written, insightful reference guide that many would find useful, yet we want to keep it low-profile to avoid vandalism, fanfic, and less than scholarly contributions. How do we reconcile those two positions?PNW Raven (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I hope I've not been belaboring the points. There is a conceptual device that many people put on their talk pages, a WikiStress meter, which indicates their overall stress level when Wikiing. While I haven't seen any such, I can well imagine a related WikiFatigue meter, indicating how tired of the process they are. At the moment, while my WikiStress is hovering in the low yellow, as it has been for years, my WikiFatigue is climbing towards redline; I have seriously considered hanging things up and departing. And I see the added work of policing several hundred new editors, or even merely several dozen, as being far more than I would be able to stand.

 * How to strike the balance? Well, that I do not know. The problem is that any fan site would be floodgates; we open it to one fan, we open it to all. That we may have to do that at some point, I do not doubt; perhaps, though, the first thing to do is to mention it privately to the specific individuals who have shown insight in items published on fan sites. If we can get a few more motivated, insightful, and scholarly contributors that way, perhaps we can use that as a way to move ahead... Chazz (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

 * A Wiki is no place to be possessive about your edits. About the overall picture, yes; we must work to keep the book intact and useful, but specific edits we can't remain wedded to. As it says immediately under the edit window, "If you do not want your writing to be edited and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." There have been numerous times I've seen my precious edits re-edited or discarded, and have had to train myself to shrug and either tweak to re-instate my meaning, or leave them and move on; and I'm sure you've felt the same way with edits I and others have made in your stuff.

 * And while I do not (now) panic when someone changes my "deathless prose", and welcome additional editors to the project, I can see us being overwhelmed by fanac, and having the project carried away completely by the fen. Which is the core of my complaint...

 * As to leaving, I am afraid that with me, it's likely to be similar to what happened with some of the earlier contributors, notably Jokes_Free4Me, jguk, hagindaz, and Hedwig0407. Particularly if an influx of new editors makes me leave, I fully expect that when I do choose to come back, the book will no longer resemble what I had thought I was working towards, and so I will no longer feel that I have anything worthwhile to contribute. Unless I'm forced out, though, it won't be any time soon that I depart; I do still have two big things that I have to finish up before I can contemplate hanging up my spurs: the walkthrough of DH, and the semi-major characters. Chazz (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

About destroying Horcruxes...
That is, I would say, a very good question. I don't have an equally good answer; however, I can speculate. And the key to my speculation is this: Why did Dumbledore travel all the way back to Hogwarts from the Gaunt shack (HBP:23) and fetch the Sword of Gryffindor out of a display case to break the ring Horcrux if the Elder Wand, of which he was the full master, could have done the job? I suspect that the difference is this: a Horcrux is a soul fragment that is bound to an object. What was in Harry was in fact not a proper Horcrux at all, but simply a piece of soul more or less along for the ride. In order to speculate on what happened there, we also have to speculate on the nature of the Avada Kedavra curse. To wit: Harry's experience in DH:35 leads us to believe that one of the effects of the Curse is to separate soul from body. But that cannot be the full effect; the Curse also works on spiders, and nobody teaches us that spiders have souls, and the end effect of the Dementor's Kiss is not a dead body, but one that is merely "as good as dead". So we have to assume that the Curse also damps the life force somehow... but we can assume that it did not do so in DH:35 primarily because Voldemort was not the master of the Wand. (Otherwise, Voldemort would have died in the Forest from that spell rebound.) So, the Curse separated Harry's soul, with its rider, from his body. The soul fragment, separated from Harry by the shock, would likely have tried to return to Voldemort's soul and reattach, and been rebuffed; and then would have evaporated, as the other Horcrux soul fragments apparently did.

It is almost certain that the magic that was used to make a Horcrux out of Nagini was the same as the magic that was used to make the other Horcruxes, in which case the soul fragment would be bound, not to Nagini's reptilian soul but to her body, and as such it would have remained intact despite Nagini's death, bound to her remains. Of course, the fact that she was killed with the Sword of Gryffindor, and its Basilisk-venom infusion, will have put an end to the Horcrux.

So, I speculate thusly: A soul fragment bound to an object, a Horcrux, is proof against ordinary magic, even magic as strong as that produced by an extraordinary wand. (At least, evidence is that Dumbledore believed so, and we have seen nothing against that.) The soul fragment within Harry is not actually bound to him, but is merely clinging to his soul, and as such is only as strong as Harry himself; if the host dies, the soul fragment is detached and vanishes. Chazz (talk) 17:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Please participate
As an active member of the Wikibooks community, we'd like your input on the CheckUser nomination for Thenub314, which can be found here. – Adrignola talk 19:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

James Sirius Potter
I have not heard about these stories, and generally would avoid them... I get really twitchy about fanfic, so much of it is really sub par. If you think they are any good, though, let me know... Chazz (talk) 15:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Voldemort's soul shard
You seem to keep altering text to indicate that the shard of Voldemort's soul is actually within Harry's scar. Do you have authority for that? Because I don't recall anything in the books that says that's the physical location of the shard; the scar is the indicator of the event, but the shard is independent, and the scar is explicitly mentioned in the Epilogue, seventeen years after the shard is gone. Chazz (talk) 15:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

DH again...
I have finally, after many months, managed to complete my walk-through of DH. So you don't have to worry about me tripping over you or vice versa as you edit.

Next up for me is characters. There are a number of semi-major characters who need attention (Dean, Seamus, Angelina, Katy, and so forth) so I'll be re-reading the series to bring them up to scratch; and after that, perhaps a walk-through of characters to make sure all of them are as complete as we can make them. Probably I'll add prev/next to character pages then. Chazz (talk) 22:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible new books...
Frankly, I must confess that I am not entirely pleased at the thought of more HP books. Yeah, I know that Rowling feels she has lost something with the end of the books; it is actually possible that she feels it almost as the loss of a friend, as do many readers. But one of the big things about the series was that it was complete in itself; it has a clear beginning, middle, and end, with the tasks set to our hero being scaled appropriately: saving himself, saving his friends, saving the world, in that order. In my opinion, Harry's story is told; and if JKR goes on and writes yet more in that story, one would certainly wonder if she were falling victim to the lure of the almighty pound.

Now, on the other hand, if she wanted to tell some of Albus Severus', James Sirius', or James' stories, that would be a different kettle of fish. It would, of course, still be seen in certain quarters as falling prey to capitalism; it would be derivative, probably, though arguably less so than fanfic; but it would not be trying to bolt new content onto a completed story. Chazz (talk) 23:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

 * I guess I'm a bit jaded... but then I'm allowed to be, I'm an old guy. But I have seen far too many cases where someone wrote a story, and then was compelled for one reason or another to revisit the story, and the results have been... less than satisfactory. Case in point: The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever. When that story arc was done, it should have bloody well been done; the Second Chronicles were a serious disappointment, as in order to make it work, the author had to jettison all the character development of the main character that had occurred in the first series. And similarly, Kurtz' Deryni series, which started strong but suddenly weakened with the second trilogy. Or Piers Anthony's Apprentice Adept trilogy... and the second trilogy (shudder). Or the two or three books that supposedly rounded out Anthony's five-book Incarnations of Immortality. I would hold up the Silmarillion as a classic bad example, but it is suggested that Tolkien would never have published that; it was his own internal reference. C. S. Lewis said that seven books is enough for any adventure, which is why he destroyed Narnia in the seventh book; HP is complete in seven books also, and while it could, in theory, be revisited, I cannot believe that adventures of a grown-up Harry would be as entertaining as what we have read. I greatly fear that if Rowling revisits, people will be disappointed, and it will weaken the entire series as a consequence. If she does return to the Wizarding world, the only way she could make it work would be with a separate series of adventures. Dumbledore and Grindelwald, for instance; perhaps Dumbledore also had a hero, and we could have an epic story out of him? Harry's father's demise was just too ignoble to make a good story, but there is possibility in Harry's children still... Chazz (talk) 07:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

HP Exhibit
Raven, I knew about the traveling exhibit — there's a lot of discussion of it on one of the sites I visit — but I can't quite justify the three hour drive each way unless I can get one of the other family members interested. And so far, no such luck on that. Do keep me posted; if it's worth looking at, I might just be able to swing it... Chazz (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * October 31st is a big day in the series, at least the first four. Lily and James' murders, the Troll in the dungeons and the formation of the Trio, Nearly Headless Nick's deathday, the Petrification of Mrs. Norris, Sirius Black's first attempt to break into Gryffindor Tower, and Harry's being made fourth Triwizard champion. I would hope they commemorate it somehow... The timing of the train is a little inconvenient for me, as it seems to require an overnight stay in Seattle; possibly two overnights, as last time I checked (granted, about a decade ago) it ran Seattle to Vancouver in the morning, and Vancouver to Seattle in the evening. So I'd have to run down, overnight, visit the exhibition, hang around Seattle all day, overnight again, and back in the morning. Might well be simpler to drive... And it was Mugglenet where I read about the exhibit. Chazz (talk) 16:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Getting logged out
Not a problem... happens to us all, Wikibooks stores our credentials for a month and then deliberately forgets us, unless we tell it not to remember us in which case it forgets as soon as we close the session. But I can't take any credit this time; you must have looked at the talk page for the IP address, from a month ago where I commented on that. Surprising that you've kept the same IP address for a month; most providers will change you every couple of weeks. Chazz (talk) 15:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Hope your IP address being visible isn't going to cause privacy concerns. You can change an option in your preferences, such as showing a preview on first edit, so that when you don't see that preview when you go to edit a page, you get a greater indication that you're logged out. – Adrignola talk 19:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Harry's relationships
Just a quick note... I removed the line about Harry becoming brother / sister in law to Hermione. I have been told that the in-law relation is only valid through one marriage, not two, so while Ginny and Hermione will be in-laws, and Ron and Harry will be, Harry and Hermione will not... But that's just a quibble. The rest of that looks very well thought out. Chazz (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Dumbledore and the soul shard
That is a very good question.

In DH:33, we learn that Dumbledore was sure of the existence of the soul shard, had been since the before the overheard conversation in March of HBP. (The conversation in question, where Snape produces a Patronus, occurs the evening after the conversation overheard by Hagrid and discussed with Harry and Hermione as they leave the Hospital Wing after Ron's birthday accident.) At that time, he is aware that Harry's connection with Voldemort and his parseltongue ability are due to that shard. You will note that he never uses the word "Horcrux" in that conversation; this is an argument that what is riding Harry is not a Horcrux, rather just an attached bit of soul, as I had surmised earlier.

So how far back can we take it? Certainly as far as Christmas in OotP. The telling point there is that Dumbledore asks what Harry's viewpoint is, and does not seem surprised to learn that it was through the snake's eyes that Harry witnessed the attack on Arthur. (The author has indicated, though she has not said outright, that the machine producing the snake-like coils of green smoke is indicating the dual-intelligence nature of Nagini, either Nagini and Horcrux in Nagini, or Voldemort in Voldemort and Horcrux. She has not been specific.) This, for Dumbledore, would have been confirmation of two soul shards: the Horcrux in Nagini and the shard in Harry, and would have been explanation for the abilities that Harry had shown, and the communications channel.

So when did Dumbledore really know? The appearance of Voldemort riding Quirrell in PS would have told Dumbledore that Voldemort knew how to make Horcruxes and had done so. The diary in CoS indicated that Voldy had made at least two. I suspect that it was over the summer that Dumbledore put two and two together, recognizing that if he had made two, Voldy's soul would be frayed enough that a chunk could shear off at his disembodiment, and if it then attached to the last living being in the house, it would have ended up riding Harry, thus explaining, in particular, how a wizard with no bloodline back to Slytherin could speak to snakes. I suspect that Dumbledore was reasonably sure of its existence through most of PoA and GoF, but did not concern himself with it overly until Voldy re-embodied at the end of GoF.

I believe that Dumbledore knew, from the beginning, that Harry would have to fight Voldy, based on the prophecy. I do not think that Dumbledore initially thought Harry had to die because of that. I suspect that, after the end of CoS, he believed that Harry would die in the encounter; but when he learns Voldy used Harry's blood in his re-embodiment at the end of GoF, Dumbledore believed that Harry could not be killed by Voldy. Again, it is necessary to be careful with wording; in DH:33 Dumbledore says that Harry will "set out to meet his death", but he neither says that Voldemort will kill him, nor that he will die. It is Snape who says that Harry must die. Dumbledore, at this point, knows that Harry must be hit with a spell hard enough to destroy or at least detach the soul fragment, and insists that it must be done by Voldemort only because Harry is to some extent safe from Voldemort. If anyone else was to kill Harry, it would destroy the soul fragment, but if Voldy does it, Harry is likely to survive the experience.

So: to restate. Dumbledore knows that there is at least one Horcrux by the end of PS. By the end of CoS he knows that there are at least two, and suspects the soul shard in Harry. His belief in the soul shard is firmed up by events in GoF, and he is quite sure of its existence by Christmas in OotP. Dumbledore always knew Harry and Voldy would have to fight, but was never sure of the outcome until the end of GoF, where he learned that Voldy had taken Harry's blood and thus extended Harry's protection. At that point, he knew that despite Harry's vulnerability to any and all other wizards, Voldemort alone could never kill him, unless Harry allowed it. I suspect that knowing this, Dumbledore started a campaign, with Snape's assistance almost certainly, to convince Voldemort that he had to fight Harry directly. Dumbledore's program of strengthening and training Harry was specifically to make him less vulnerable to other chance encounters, and to give him the confidence in himself that would be required to allow him to face Voldemort.

Clear as mud?

I note that since 13 November, you have trimmed Dumbledore's entry from 144,000 characters to 103,300, a 28% decrease in length. After working so hard to get him slimmed down, are you sure you want him to bulk up again? Chazz (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Actually, Dumbledore is a very straightforward character... he sees his course, he acts upon it, and he is pretty much unchanged, except for a certain sense of urgency in HBP, throughout the series. But he does play his cards exceedingly close to the vest. Which means there is a lot of work for those of us trying to analyze him: we have to figure out what he knew and when, in order to show why he did things.

 * For complex characters, nobody in the book matches Severus Snape. That analysis is going to be a real pain to write...

 * I... hesitate to admit it, but I have not yet even seen HBP. I don't know why not; I did offer to take my kids to see it, but they weren't interested, so I didn't make time. So before I can see DH1, I have to find a copy of HBP and make time to watch it. Life gets complicated sometimes... Chazz (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Actually, at this point I'm thinking: rent HBP when I can, but then wait until the ultimate edition comes out before buying it. Of course, I would also be getting the ultimate versions of all eight, over time... and I'd need to get a blu-ray DVD player as well, and maybe an HDTV, or at least monitor. But that's for another time... sometime when I have money, and time, to burn.

 * There is some analysis of Snape already, but it is woefully thin for a character so complex. I may get a chance to add to it... but first things first. I still have to complete my walk-through with the semi-majors. Chazz (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Caps
Raven, I hope you'll excuse me for asking what may be a silly question, but... should we standardize on a capitalization for Wizard and Wizarding? Reason I ask is that in DH:20 and DH:21 you've just taken the initial capitalization off those words, while in a lot of other places I saw that you had put it on. It makes little difference to me which it is, but we should decide whether those are properly capitalized or not, and then stick to it, so we don't have edit wars over that sort of trivia... Chazz (talk) 04:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay; we'll go in that direction. I seem to recall that Wizarding was capitalized in PS, though wizard was not except in titles (Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry); my arguably fading recollection was that it was not capitalized after that. Then again, once we get into CoS there isn't much call for it; Harry thinks about his friends, rather than about the Wizarding world. My inclination, actually, would be to capitalize Wizarding and leave wizard lower case throughout, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to dredge up anything resembling a reason for that. Chazz (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Nagini is not a Basilisk
... is the short answer, but not the complete one.

Nagini, large and dangerous as she is, is only a snake, albeit a venomous one; probably something exotic, as her venom is one of the things that is used to keep "baby Voldy" alive. That said: we know that if Nagini had bitten Harry with venom, he would have died almost instantly, as Snape did. So Nagini must have simply bitten Harry. Why she did this is simple: one of the things Harry hears in his mind is Voldemort's instructions to Nagini to hold Harry, rather than killing him. Which Nagini then tries to do.

We've already learned that Dittany is a potent healing substance -- I'm reluctant to call it a potion, it may be a simple extract of the plant, or may be treated magically in some way to enhance its healing effect. I don't believe it would be good against Basilisk venom; the way the Trio are sprinkling Dittany around in DH, it is far too common a curative to be considered "uncommon magic", and if it could cure Basilisk venom, surely the diary Horcrux would have been able to Summon some to heal itself with. In fact, I don't believe Dittany would have healed Harry if Nagini had envenomed him; I believe he would have been dead before Hermione reached the door. So Nagini was following instructions; and the Dittany was used to heal the un-envenomed puncture wounds, at which it no doubt excelled... though traces of venom likely caused some scarring. Chazz (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

 * I must admit that it would seem more like Voldemort to have a basilisk, but it would also be far more dangerous, as of course basilisks also kill with their stare... and Malfoy Manor would be littered with dead Death Eaters who happened to glance at her. But no... it's only in CoS that we see a basilisk, and even there it is kept locked up almost all the time, even though it is nominally under Riddle's control. Chazz (talk) 01:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

CoS:14 strangeness
That... was very odd. I'm going to have to guess that it was a glitch in the Matrix. To be precise: I saw the same thing (editing help). I opened the page for editing thinking there might be a stray template. Opened, it looked normal. So I saved it again; saved, it looked normal again. I'm thinking that it must have been a stale lookup from the database oddness that happened on the 25th. Chazz (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The Twins and time travel
You recently restored some text indicating a possibility that the Twins could perhaps travel in time. I think I have to react with extreme skepticism... because if they could, why would they have bet with Bagman? Within 24 hours after they had won, their money would have disappeared; surely they could have gone back in time to warn themselves. Additionally, there is the fact that Hermione never did go forward in time, only backward; it seems that there is a limitation there, and it seems to me a natural one, that you cannot go forward, because the future has not yet occurred and so you don't have a target to aim at.

However. More to the point: The twins made some very bad decisions, decisions that could have been avoided if they had time travel, and the fact that they made those decisions indicates that they didn't know what was going to happen. I tend to believe that the accuracy of the Twins' wager was more due to attentive following of the sport and the players, and a view of the players' capabilities unbiased by team or national loyalty. It is only just possible that they had found some technique for clairvoyance, and the reason they did not see Bagman's defection or Fred's death was because they were not looking for it. But it is pretty much impossible, in my opinion, that we will ever see Fred again.

If you want to leave that text standing, or modify it to include my thoughts, be my guest... I will even go through and add the links later. But my immediate thought is that it does not belong because it is just too far out in left field to even qualify as speculation. Chazz (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

 * I certainly did not appreciate having someone anonymously deleting my text as "nonsense" and without discussing it with me. The Twins time traveling is hardly "out in left field" as we have seen characters do just that. I came across several online comments by readers several years ago on the possibility that the Twins could have used this method to determine the Match's outcome. It seemed plausible to me (more likely than having found a clairvoyance technique), and led to my speculation that George would consider using it again to save Fred. He would, in fact, do anything to save his brother. I also read speculation on the Harry Potter WIKI that both Bill Weasley and Percy Weasley could have used a Time Turner to achieve so many OWLs while studying at Hogwarts. If that is true,then maybe the Twins "borrowed" it from Percy at some point while he was still at Hogwarts and were unable to access it later to go back and change their resulting losses. Regardless, it is reasonable they could have time traveled, and it could be endlessly speculated about other ways they obtained the results to no point and with less proof.

 * Also, saying that it is not possible to go forward in time based on Hermione only being seen going back is without merit. Hermione would have been under strict restrictions on how she was to use the Time Turner and may have only been allowed to use it one way, or she simply chose not to go forward in time, only back (being as she is a creature of habit). We simply don't know. I wrote the section as an intersting speculation based on what we've seen the characters are capable of doing in the series, and on how Rowling plants clues long before they are explained. George's missing ear also seemed a little too obvious to me as a means to tell the two apart. Just how all this would happen, if it was included in a future book, is up to the author, I'm just saying it is possible, and of all the characters who were killed or presumed killed, then Fred and Mad Eye Moody seem the only ones who could possibly reappear. PNW Raven (discuss • contribs) 21:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't agree, to me it feels counter to anything else we've seen in the series... but I don't see this as worth a battle by any means. And I will point out that we did see Fred dead, therefore it is extremely unlikely that it would be possible to bring him back—it would cause a paradox. If you want, I'll go in and linkify it. Chazz (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding the links.PNW Raven (discuss • contribs) 21:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Trelawney
A thought occurred to me... Trelawney's name is one of the few things that are different in the US and UK versions. Everywhere else there has been that sort of difference, we have used the UK variant, but Trelawney's name was apparently grandfathered in with the US spelling. In your opinion, is it worth my walking through the text and correcting it to the UK version? Or am I being exceptionally picky? Chazz (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So Trelawney is now Sybill throughout. I've left the American spelling in the All Pages list / collection so that if the redirect page is edited, we can still see that; and I'm going to suggest that the redirect page be left as people will try to search on the US spelling. But as far as the visible book goes, it looks like Trelawney is entirely back in the UK... or at least, will be once the print versions of the books are regenerated. Chazz (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, sounds good. PNW Raven (discuss • contribs) 20:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

GoF 14: why does the House-Elf stuff keep moving from GP to Analysis?
At least once, I moved the lengthy analysis of Hermione and the House-Elf Liberation Front from Analysis to Greater Picture. The last time I did this, I left the rationale in the edit comment: to wit, that mentioning Dobby in the Analysis was something of a spoiler because we had not yet found that he was working in the kitchens at Hogwarts. Rather than resume a slow-motion edit war, I will quietly request that you edit that section to remove Dobby, or at least the mention of Dobby's being employed by Dumbledore. In order to prevent it from reappearing in the analysis, you could mention Dobby's influence on Hermione and SPEW briefly in GP... but again, I'll let you handle that so as to not appear to be willfully mangling your edits. Chazz (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

 * I actually have no memory of this previously being moved, and, honestly, I rarely look at the comments on the history log, or, if I do, it is so long after the fact, I just kind of note it and mentally file it away. I am certainly not engaging in an edit war here. I was rereading the section and it just seemed like there was no reason to have it in the Greater Picture as I didn't think there were any particular spoilers (I had not considered that Dobby's current status was still unknown yet). I can certainly reword it to reflect that. In future, it would be helpful if you would PM me directly about changes like this, as I will certainly take immediate note of it, and I can relate my opinions regarding it.PNW Raven (discuss • contribs) 22:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

 * There doesn't seem to be a PM facility on WB... do you want an email address? Chazz (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Sorry, I meant just use the WB Talk--this thing--whatever we're using now. That works for me.PNW Raven (discuss • contribs) 02:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

 * PNW Raven doesn't have an email address set up. But Chazz does.  Special:EmailUser/Chazz would constitute Wikibooks' "PM" function. – Adrignola discuss 02:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the info!PNW Raven (discuss • contribs) 03:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Japan earthquake and Pacific coast tsunami advisory
Raven -- just checking in to see if you and yours are OK... Chazz (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

 * This part of the coast is shielded by Vancouver Island, so there was not even an advisory here... In my previous job, I also worked with a number of people in Tokyo, and I have to admit to wondering how they are; but it seems that when that job ended they chose to sever contact, and I have not heard from any of them in the intervening 17 years. I do hope they are all right... and that they continue to be so. That nuclear power plant does have me a little worried -- Japan is so densely populated that another Chernobyl would be a serious ongoing problem for them. Chazz (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

GoF:36: the weaker wizard?
I am prepared to be overruled on this, but my recollection is that in his office, telling Harry about the Priori Incantatem effect, Dumbledore never implies that it is the weaker wizard's wand that is forced to disgorge the last few spells it cast. While he does state that, it isn't until DH:35. I believe that if Dumbledore had said, or even implied, that Voldemort was the weaker wizard at that point, Harry would have been astonished, and his reaction would have made the scene more memorable. I have corrected the text to say "one wizard", rather than "the weaker wizard". Chazz (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I won't overrule this; it's a minor point and the way you worded it is fine. I was presenting it from an "insider's point-of-view." PNW Raven (discuss • contribs) 12:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I did end up putting it back, but only in Greater Picture, because it does have repercussions in the way the story is presented. If Harry had been told he was the stronger wizard, how would the story have changed? Chazz (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't view it as anything that Harry was or wasn't told by Dumbledore, but only what can be seen from our vantage point. Harry, by shear strength, is clearly forcing the beam back into Voldemort's wand, as Voldemort appears to be physically struggling to fend Harry off and is also showing fear (of Harry and his victims' shades). That is what I see as Harry being the stronger wizard.PNW Raven (discuss • contribs) 02:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree. When I first read the scene with the beads being forced back on to Voldemort, it took me aback because, as a reader, I had been conditioned to that point to think that Dumbledore, "the only one he ever feared", was the only wizard stronger than Voldy. When Dumbledore later did not comment on that, I held it in reserve, not knowing whether it was a one-time thing, whether Harry would normally be stronger than Voldemort or whether it was only because he was weak from being recently re-embodied. I think I mention in GP that Harry's being stronger in this instance is a thing that the reader observes, and Harry doesn't.
 * Your original wording had it as part of Dumbledore's explanation to Harry about what the Priori Incantatem effect was, which was not quite true to canon, and if it had been, would have led to much more reaction from Harry than we have seen, because his conditioning regarding Voldy's strength would have been even stronger than ours. I believe Harry's being told he was stronger would have led possibly to overconfidence on Harry's part if he accepted Dumbledore's statement, or to a weakening of the bond between Harry and Dumbledore if he rejected it and thus assumed Dumbledore was getting old and "barmy". Which is why I felt I had to edit it out, and also why I felt I had to bring it back as part of the GP. Chazz (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with the way it is worded now.PNW Raven (discuss • contribs) 00:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

DH:18 minor spoiler
Raven, while I understand your intent, to give more of an overview or overhead view, when writing the analysis and summary I believe we had decided to avoid, or try to avoid, mentioning things that the protagonists were not yet aware of. In that light, I have to ask you to back out your edits from the analysis in DH:18... at least to the extent of removing mention of the Hallows. Neither Harry nor Hermione has heard that term yet... that doesn't happen until a few days hence, when Xeno mentions it. To this point, they have only heard mention of that symbol as being Grindelwald's. Chazz (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, that was just an oversight. Frankly, I need to reread the books--it's been too long, and I'm working from memory. I'll rework this, and just keep tapping me on the shoulder.PNW Raven (discuss • contribs) 20:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Bellatrix
It looks like we're getting into an edit war, again, as I just changed this, and you seem to have changed it back... Bellatrix is deathly afraid that the Sword of Gryffindor is real, because she believes the real one was in her vault, and if what she sees before her is real, her vault has been broken into. If she is, as you say, afraid that the Sword is not what it appears to be, why does she relax and allow Voldemort to be called once Griphook says it is fake? The fact that the sword in her vault was fake when it was placed there is not known to her... so she is most afraid that the Sword is what it seems to be. Chazz (talk) 00:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

 * Oh, sorry, I was misreading that. Go ahead and change it back.PNW Raven (discuss • contribs) 00:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

 * Like so? Chazz (talk) 00:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Recent big edits
Raven, a few months back I noticed that you were doing relatively large edits of the chapters in MG, excising hundreds of words at a crack, and I stopped following up, because I guessed that any clean-up would be useless if you were going to visit the next day and repeat the process. Are you pretty much finished with that? If so, I'll start going back through and checking grammar and confirming nothing major has been mistakenly pulled... if not, I'll wait until you give me the go-ahead. Chazz (talk) 00:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

 * I'm still working on it. I've been concentrating on character pages. As all the book synopsis are now so detailed, I've been streamlining the plot reviews on the character pages, as it was redundant. I still check back to the books and tweak them as needed. I think "Voldemort" and "Neville" are pretty much done, at least for now. "Dumbledore" is probably next, then "Snape."

 * Also, did you sign up for Pottermore? I got an early registration, but they don't start letting people in until mid-August, and will do so in batches. I made it on Day 5, so I'm assuming they will go by order of the days people registered. Can't wait!PNW Raven (discuss • contribs) 14:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately, I was never near my machine when the Pottermore beta windows opened. So while I'm aware of it, I will have to wait until general availability in October... My understanding is that it's actually a random selection from all people who managed to get a Quill, so you could get your invitation tomorrow. I'm a little curious as to how Pottermore will affect MG, to tell the truth. Does it become part of canon? Chazz (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

 * That's an interesting point as to how Pottermore could affect MG. I guess we'll have to see how that unfolds. I was quite surprised to get registered. I had been trying unsuccessfully, and took a chance to look while I was a work on Day 5, and there it was! I had to dive into the filing cabinet to get my purse to get a calculator so I could solve the riddle and then find the quill. I was in a panic the whole time, as I didn't want my boss coming by just then (oops, he just now came by was I am writing this, but didn't notice what I was up to). Well, the general registration will soon be open. I'll let you know what I think about it.PNW Raven (discuss • contribs) 18:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

WCI 2011 Proposal :Accelerating Wikibooks. Help Needed!
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

Pottermore as a source
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)
 * Looks like people are now importing Pottermore information: this edit comes from an IP editor. In my opinion, it doesn't belong, as it does not enhance the Guide as an analysis of the literary side of HP, and additionally directly contradicts something Ollivander says in DH... but I'm beginning to think that my vision, and Matt's before mine, of what the MG is supposed to be is now no longer operative. Would you be so kind as to add an opinion? Chazz (talk) 22:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm not happy about that at all. As I discussed with you sometime earlier, some static information, IMHO, from Pottermore is fine, but I really just wanted to stick to statistical information or minimal background info (such as with McGonagall's earlier life) to round out the character pages and other sections, not "bulk up" the chapter synopsis and analysis sections with "added on" trivial details that, as you say, is in opposition to what is in the books. I vote for deleting it, because, as you mentioned, it contradicts what's in the book and, it just adds unnecessary and confusing detail. Has there been a lot of new editors coming in or is this pretty isolated?PNW Raven (discuss • contribs) 22:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll back that one out, then; we seem to be in agreement. So far, it's been pretty isolated... this is the only one recently. This link is what I usually use to see changes to the book; and as you can see there's not a huge amount more than usual going on. Chazz (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Fleur Delacour
Raven, with all due humility, could I ask you to back out the edits on Fleur Delacour? Her Veela ancestry does constitute a bit of a spoiler... Chazz (talk) 06:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I can modify it. I do want to include what her wand is.PNW Raven (discuss • contribs) 11:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Possible new section: connections
Raven, I'm thinking of putting in an optional subsection of the Greater Pictures section for book chapters, to be titled Connections. This would specifically call out items in the chapter that are connected to events earlier or later in the story. For instance, the chapter in PS that has Harry catching the Snitch in his mouth would have links forward to DH where the secret within the Snitch is first suggested and then later revealed. Moody's use of the "Put-Outer" in OotP would be linked back to PS:1 where we first see it, and to the chapters in DH where it is given to Ron, where it leads him back to Harry and Hermione, and where he uses it to help escape from the cellar in Malfoy Manor. I'll be going through the chapters in a while to try and bring them all up to standard, and would be adding that as I go. Any thoughts? Good idea? Bad idea? Chazz (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm glad you're glad I'm working... but I never really left. I did cut back a lot, and I will not be able to put as much time in as I once did. But I have been working in small ways all along... lately I've been working my way through Major Events, bringing them up to standard and adding a few, one editor suggested adding Voldy's first downfall, and the visits to Godric's Hollow and Xeno as major events, so I've done that. I've kept resolutely out of the chapter summaries of late, as you seemed to be whipping back and forth across them at a substantial rate and I was never sure whether you were finished (mostly) with a book, or whether we'd end up in an edit war. If you're OK with my methodical progression through the books, I'll start on that update as soon as I have finished wit the Major Events sections.
 * Oh, and congratulations on finding full-time work! In this economy that's not a small achievement... and if it has been a while since you worked full time, it can be an adjustment. Been there (not from choice), done that... but better now. And I've just graduated a son from post-secondary school — he's a trained video editor now. Chazz (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a heads up -- I've finished, I think, the major events, and will now start on connections, starting with PS. Chazz (talk) 18:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Great. You're making good progress. I look forward to seeing the connections, once you get them strung together. I'm working on chapter analysis, trying to improve continuity. It just seems like there's many good comments, but often seem just tossed in and not quite at the right place (by order of relevance or importance. PNW Raven (discuss • contribs) 19:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So, I think that's all the Connections sections in PS. I'm not happy about the analysis in PS:17, seems very ragged to me and actually inaccurate -- Voldy doesn't care about Machiavelli's facade of morality, we can see in DH that he believes power is sufficient -- and there is some stuff in there that constitutes minor spoilers. But I didn't want to go around yarding stuff out wholesale... Chazz (talk) 23:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at the analysis stuff. I'm trying to go over all the chapters' analysis sections to add/delete/smooth out choppy transitions, etc.PNW Raven (discuss • contribs) 01:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, dear...
There are rumours now of a new three-book series to be set in the Potter universe... wonder if the quality will be as good. Chazz (talk) 22:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Never mind... apparently it's a three-volume boxed set of hardcover editions of Quidditch Through the Ages, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, and The Tales of Beedle the Bard. Nothing we don't already know about. Chazz (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm rather disappointed. I want more Harry Potter! I never saw any reason for her to stop just because Voldy is dead, and I'd love to synthesize/analyze some new HP material on Wikibooks. Maybe she's afraid she can't maintain the quality. Oh well. PNW Raven (discuss • contribs) 20:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

New "character" added...
A nameless editor added Binky, Lavender's pet bunny. Your opinion: keep or revert? Chazz (talk) 00:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh good grief! What next? Unless Binky talks, is magical, or is in some way sentient and/or plays any kind of significant role in the series, then it should probably be reverted. I can't see including sub-minor, miscellaneous pets, particularly ones that are only mentioned in passing. PNW Raven (discuss • contribs) 14:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Now reverted. The only reason I even thought about keeping it is that Binky has about as much play as some of the minor characters we have kept -- people who are seen at their Sorting, and never again. But they at least have the advantage of being sentient, where Binky is just a bunny, as far as we are told. Chazz (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If Binky had actually been at Hogwarts with Lavender or was seen elsewhere in the story, then I'd think it might be worthwhile having him/her listed. Otherwise, it seems just insignificant enough to not include it. However, after having read the Binky entry, I wouldn't have objected if you had wanted to leave it.PNW Raven (discuss • contribs) 02:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My feeling is that we are writing a work that casts light on the literary merits of the series, rather than a simple encyclopedia. For an encyclopedia, Binky would be valid; but for the actual works, Binky is not a character, but an effect. And as such, my feeling is that he does not merit inclusion as a character... But I'm wondering just how relevant my ideas are to the direction the book seems to be taking. We do seem to keep getting encyclopedia-type entries appearing, like this one... not often, only one a month or so at the moment, but I suspect that with the resurgence in popularity triggered by Pottermore, we may see more of that... and I'm not sure that the vision I have is relevant any more. Chazz (talk) 02:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the core of the book remains the same--a reader's guide to an in-depth understanding of the series as a whole, as well as to the character's and their motives. I think most works like this often have a small part that is "encyclopedic" or perhaps more accurately, a "glossary." And while ours does seem to contain that, I see it as being incidental to and separate from the original vision. Having factual information can surely help the reader, without taking away from our mission. However, I agree we don't need to add such minor trivial items like Binky. The Harry Potter Lexicon is more suitable for that. I say let's keep removing this type of stuff.PNW Raven (discuss • contribs) 18:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Connections redux
Good to see you back again!

Just thought I'd mention that the connections are slow going; I've gotten up to about GoF:29 on them, if you wanted to take a look and comment / criticize... plus they are not complete, even now. I just had to go back and tweak connections in PS:8, because of the connection with an eagle owl in GoF:29, I think.

Speaking of which: Harry, at one point, is lying on the grass outside the school and sees an eagle owl fly towards the school, loop around the Owlery, and fly away. Do you happen to remember what book that's in? I'm thinking possibly PS:17, but I haven't found it yet... Chazz (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

 * Hi, Chazz! I hope all is well in your neck of the woods. I was hoping you were still around. Well, I never really left here and I keep checking from time-to-time. I have been busy writing a novel (when I'm not working)!! Really! I hope to have it finished in another year. I have 13 chapters (out of 20) done so far. That will be the rough draft. Then I'll do a rewrite and have it edited. I'll let you know when it's finished. I'm going to publish it online (Amazon Kindle and others). It's young adult fantasy and in similar universe as HP (of course) but very different. I'll keep you posted.

 * I do remember about Harry lying on the grass outside, but not which book. Seems like it was one of the earlier ones. If I can find out, I'll let you know. I think your "connections" are brilliant. Keep up the good work. --PNW Raven

 * There is not much chance that I'm better at literary analysis than you are, but if you want me to cast a jaded eye across your novel before it goes live, you have but to ask...

 * It's been some hectic up here. I haven't really had a weekend for the past month or more... but I suppose that's all to the good, I get to invoice more. We're still here, still doing OK... though ChazzJr seems to have given up on his literary work. A shame, that. And how are things going with you, then? Chazz (talk) 03:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Everything is going okay, for the most part. I hate my job, and I can't wait to retire, and I'm working toward that end, saving as much as I can. I'm giving it another two-and-a-half years. I work on the novel in the morning hours, getting a few hours in a day. I hope Chazz Jr. is able to get back to his literary work, if that is what he truly wants to do. I had always wanted to write a book, so I figured I'd better get going. Actually, it's a trilogy, so a lot of work ahead. Hopefully a few people will read it. It's good that there's alternative options for writers. I'll still be working on Muggles Guide, too. It's definitely my place to go to get away from it all.

Oh boy, I've forgotten how to put a "signature" at the end of these posts so it dates it and creates a link with your name. . . How do you do that? --Raye

 * It's never fun being in a job you don't like, just for a paycheck and a pension... I guess I'm just lucky. Sort of. Problem is that mine is the sort of job where you don't really get time off... so long as I keep enjoying it, I'll have work. As to the book: I have just recently read and critiqued another YA novel; it was pretty dreadful, I ended up giving the author about ten pages of recommendations, and I have heard that they were pretty valuable. i haven't yet seen the end result, though... apparently I set him a pretty tough course of work. I would be remiss if I were to not offer you the same service.

 * ChazzJr seems to feel his metier lies in professional wrestling, which he knows is fake: he has enough training in the field to recognize not only the fakeness but the skill involved in making the fakery. He is currently working on getting the necessary body strength and ability to go in that direction. We'll see how that turns out...

 * The signature mark is four tildes: ~ . Forgetting that doesn't seem to hinder your other Wiki work, though... Chazz (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you!!! There's so much technical stuff about Wiki formatting that is a total mystery. I always appreciate your expertise and detailed knowledge, particularly in all things HP. PNW Raven (discuss • contribs) 22:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Book quotes?
Someone working from an IPv6 address has started putting in quotes from the chapter at the head of each chapter summary. I'm not sure this is a good idea... not every chapter has a characteristic quote. I've moved a few of them to places in the chapter summary closer to where they belong, but I'm not sure that's a good idea either. Do you have an opinion? Chazz (talk) 19:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

 * That's pretty much what I felt as well. They sort of detract from the tone we're aimed at... for a lighter, less scholarly book, maybe. I'll see if I can find 'em and clean them out.

 * I'm going to be bouncing through Seattle with my family, on our way back and forth to Maine, shortly, but if you're buried maybe I shouldn't try to get in touch... Chazz (talk) 07:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ohh!!! Let me know when you're going to be here. We'll work something out! That would be great.PNW Raven (discuss • contribs) 20:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Cell phone / internet access will be sporadic for me for a while. If I have time available (no guarantees yet), I'll be in Seattle the morning of the 21st. ChazzJr doesn't seem over-keen at meeting, but that's the way teenagers are... of course, he's not editing WB any more. Chazz (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep me posted. I'll give you contact info when/if things work out. PNW Raven (discuss • contribs)
 * Alas, 'twas not to be... at least, not this time. By the time we made it back to Seattle, we were pretty much dead on our feet, having set out from Bangor ME at 0230. We would not have been good company. At all. But we're not that far away... maybe next time? Chazz (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please, next time! Would love to meet you sometime. And as you say, we are not far away. Hope you had a good trip.I'm going to Washington D.C. in a little over a week to visit a friend. I've never been there before. PNW Raven (discuss • contribs)

Global account
Hi PNW Raven! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, DerHexer (discuss • contribs) 19:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey Raven, you still around?
Question seems to be coming up about other Rowling works and whether they should be included in the Muggles' Guide. My inclination is No: The Cursed Child was actually primarily written by someone else, though Rowling did have input, and Fantastic Beasts is of course a movie, and we've generally not included movies so far. Your thoughts would be very welcome... Chazz (talk) 04:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

 * Hi Chazz! I'm definitely still around. I've been writing a novel that is now in the final re-write phase. Thirty-eight chapters in all! The first of a trilogy. I agree with you totally that these works should NOT be included with "Muggles' Guide." "The Cursed Child" is a play and not based on a novel, nor was it actually written by Rowling. The same for "Beasts."  This is a film (and budding film series) that also is not based on a book but a pretend "guide" of magical creatures. How could that be broken down and analyzed? Both of those works are more appropriate for Wikipedia rather than Wikibooks IMHO. Hope all is well with you! I'll always be around and checking on Muggles Guide.PNW Raven (discuss • contribs)

 * That really is what it comes down to -- is this Rowling, or is it someone else? And despite Rowling's involvement, these two do seem to be more "fanfic" sharing her universe, rather than organic parts of her universe... IIRC Beasts was novelized by creating a story around Newt Scamander's adventures in collecting samples for the taxonomy published under that name... and feels to me like a simple cash grab. But I digress. I'll put something into the project notes that explains our rationale for excluding these additional projects, and I hope that will be good enough.
 * When you first mentioned your novel, I did offer my services as a reader; that offer still stands. Of course, you have to be prepared to handle my somewhat genteel savagery as an editor...
 * Otherwise, doing well here; lots of stuff going on to keep me busy. Hope your job hasn't sent you around the twist yet... Chazz (talk) 15:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

 * I clearly remember your offer to be a "beta reader" and have kept that in mind. Hope to have it finished soon, but it has been a long, slow haul due to working full time and vision issues (early cataracts). Just as I find my writer's voice, the eyesight goes . . . ah well. At least the mind's intact! ;=) I'm going to do the surgery in near future. Work just plods on. Can't wait to retire.PNW Raven (discuss • contribs)

Been a while...
but I'm glad to see you're editing again. How's life been treating you? Chazz (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi there! It has been a while. I haven't stopped editing, been doing stuff on general Wikipedia, but hadn't been here for awhile and thought it was time to come back. I'm good. I retired from my job a year ago and am loving it. I have a seasonal job working at Pier 91 loading passengers on and off the cruise ships. That's something very different from my previous office job. Lots of fun, but a lot of being on one's feet for some hours at a time. I wrote a novel, first of three in the young adult, dark fantasy genre, and need to take the next steps with it. I do find writing a bit challenging due to a vision problem in my left eye which can be corrected by surgery. . . eeeewww. What are you doing these days?PNW Raven (discuss • contribs) 18:33, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

 * Not a whole lot has changed here - still plugging along, still horribly overworked, picking up some video game text editing jobs here and there, doing some web programming... basically keeping busy. The offer to look over your novel is still open; I've done that for a few other people now, including one person's regular novel that I simply had no choice but to savage, it was that bad. Plus I have two cats, one of whom believes it is my duty to get out of my work chair and pet her several times a day...

 * I do hear you on that surgery thing. I've been considering getting my absolutely horribly mismatched vision corrected with Lasik, but every time I start to really think about it, it's just... eeew. That's my eye, dude. Chazz (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

 * Everyone tells me the Lasik is easy, but I'm the same as you. I have a "wrinkle" in my left retina which causes a distortion and also a small hole in the macula. The surgery is pretty "straightforward" according to my specialist but sounds unpleasant. For now, and as long as I can still drive, I just manage to visually "limp" along. If I have the surgery, they first do cataracts and they also do the Lasik, then later correct the other problem under anesthesia. That's a lot to take in.

 * I have not forgotten your offer to be a beta reader. I haven't shown it to anyone yet, but I will have to eventually.PNW Raven (discuss • contribs) 19:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

 * As you say, you have to show it to someone eventually... if you actually want it to be read. I will note that at least three authors have entrusted their first writings to me, and all have said that my criticisms were balanced, welcome, and made for a better work afterwards... and perhaps the key point, none of them hate me.

 * There's just... something about eyes, that makes me worry about doing stuff to them. Eyes are so very important to a programmer... well, to anyone, really. Chazz (talk) 22:38, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

title: User talk:PNW Raven