FANDOM

Seth Cooper

aka Rick M.

Councilor Bureaucrat
  • I was born on March 4
  • I am Male

WelcomeEdit

Hi, welcome to Titanic - Adventure Out Of Time Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the Willie von Haderlitz page.

If you need help, and there are no local admins here, you may want to visit the forums on the Community Central Wiki. Looking for live help? Then join us for an upcoming webinar to chat with staff and other Wikia editors. You can also check our Staff blog to keep up-to-date with the latest news and events around Wikia.

Happy editing, Sannse@fandom (help forum | blog)

I have a question about Rev. Troutt. I recall that he asks Bible questions on the Boat Deck toward the end.  What happens when you answer his Bible questions?  I see where he confesses that he diverted funds so he could travel on Titanic,but are you doomed by talking to him? Or is he a passage out?


72.133.229.25 15:27, April 23, 2013 (UTC)Kathy Becket


RubaiyatEdit

Does the jewels on the Rubaiyat include Emeralds?

(71.8.94.175 02:59, March 29, 2020 (UTC))

HiEdit

Hi, Seth.

I adopted this wiki sometime ago with plans to create many of the articles myself. As you can see I have become distracted and I haven't gotten round to doing a lot of what I want to do. I'm very glad to see someone else is editing on this wiki and I look forward to seeing your edits soon!

Thanks, Bobby Graham Bobbjob (talk) 18:18, November 2, 2013 (UTC)


HelloEdit

Hi,

I was just wondering if you need another admin to help get this wikia into shape? I would be glad to offer my assistance in any way possible,

Sfinn85 (talk) 16:14, July 16, 2016 (UTC)

Gaming footer Edit

Hi, Seth Cooper!

A user recently nominated Titanic for inclusion in our gaming footers program. Would you be interested? I could also do a main page polish for you at the same time ;)

Best regards,

Raylan13@fandom (talk) 19:11, July 22, 2016 (UTC)

Re: HelloEdit

Hi,

Thanks for your reply to my message.

I hope you don't mind but I deleted some duplicate pages and added a bit of colour to the wiki so that it blends in better with the background.  :-)

I've also been trying to spread the word about the wiki by sharing the link to it via Facebook and IMDb in a bid to get more people to help out.

Sfinn85 (talk) 11:48, July 26, 2016 (UTC)

Re: HelloEdit

Hi,

Thanks for your response.  I actually decided to change the background colour but edited the colours of the header, buttons and links so that they match the colours of the background image.  Hope that's OK :-)

Sfinn85 (talk) 10:33, July 27, 2016 (UTC)

HP Wikia Edit

Hi. Remember me?? I have had a lot of time to think about the things I did wrong on the Harry Potter Wikia, and realised that with still new information being added from new material I feel really really bad about not being able to contribute, and was wondering if I could ever do something that would grant me ability to contribute once again on the Wikia. I've grown as a person since then and I've learned from my mistakes and bad behaviour on the HP Wikia. --DCLM (talk) 14:10, September 2, 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm doing fine. Yes, I know, the reason I've tried to contact you is that I've tried Starstuff, but she only seems to be active on HP Wikia, and as you know I am unable to say anything on there. And yeah, I understand fully. I just thought I would try, since it's been 4 years and a lot has changed since. --DCLM (talk) 22:17, September 13, 2017 (UTC)

My block on the HP wikia:Edit

First off, I would like to apologize for bringing this to your attention here. I tried sending you an email, but the one provided to me was not recognized by gmail, so I could not send it. 

I write to express my discontent at the disrespectful way I was treated by wiki administrator Starstuff on the 20th of March, 2018, when I was unceremoniously blocked with no formal or informal warning of any kind that my conduct could be warranting of or indeed could possibly be subjected to such an overly severe and disproportionately exaggerated "punishment", if you can even call it that. I read above that you would regard it as "wholly inappropriate to unilaterally undo a block", but given the circumstances, it was whoefully inappropiate for Starfstuff to unilaterally block me as well. If it is the case that you for some reason approved of this without even letting me know this was a possibility, I must admit that I find it genuinely hurtful, since we are all thinking, breeding adults and there were nothing stopping you, or any other admin, for that matter, from simply dropping me a note on my talk page informing me as firmly as you felt to be necessary that if I kept debating, I could risk a block. On the outlook of things, I have been blocked indefinitively for no other reason than because I had an opinion that differed from yours and stuck to it in discussion. The grounds for my block that was submitted also feels completely foreign to me, and I cannot say I recognize any such situation to have occurred regarding this matter:

[1]

Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Starstuff.

The reason given is this: Unhelpful additions to articles. Constant edit-warring and arguing. Badgering and harassing other users. I believe the wiki's collective patience has been exhausted. You may contact Starstuff or one of the other administrators to discuss the block.

To discuss the block, you can still edit your talk page or e-mail an administrator. Note that you may not use the "e-mail this user" feature unless you have a valid e-mail address registered in your user preferences. If you do not have an e-mail registered, you may send a query to harrypotter-l@wikia.com.

Your IP address is 2001:4640:2BB2:0:3568:A945:6D8E:2911. Please include this address in any queries you make.

This doesn't sit right with me for several reasons:

I don't know if this "collective patience" is a real thing, or if this was some sort of sudden whim of Starstuff's, but I do know that it was completely unnecessary, not to mention unwarranted, to the point of being a serious misconduct on their part, and I resent being subjected to treatment befitting actual vandals and trolls intent on spamming and ruining the Harry Potter wiki when I do not fit such a category. I might be wrong, of course, but I believe that unless we are talking of cases of severe harassment and/or personal attacks, the policy says that editors will receive three or four official warnings prior to being permanently blocked. To the best of my knowledge, I only ever received one or two, and none of which suggested anything I did was deserving of something like this.

Firstly, because I am not some internet troll going onto the wiki, vandalizing the content. We were having a dispute about what content were canonically relevant, and if you or anyone else felt I was going overboard, you needed only say so, and I would have heeded it.  As far as "unhelpful additions to articles go", this was not a case of me making unhelpful additions to articles, I simply objected to the removal of certain pieces of information that I had added previously and did not agree was speculative.I admittedly went the wrong way about it in the heat of the moment by edit warring, but not only am I not guilty of constant edit warring, though I shall concede that I might have asserted myself and my opinion a bit more strongly than necessary in regard to the article of John Dawlish for - what, the past day or two? The same for Charlus Potter, the BTS addition I made was re-added once, maybe twice, and then we had a bit of a discourse on the talk page, and then I re-wrote it to emphasize the distinct possibility that relatives of James and Lily might have been targeted for information about their whereabouts prior to Wormtail's betrayal, rather than treating it as fact. Nothing constituing another edit war, at the very least.

I would also like to point out that when Ironyak1 warned me on my page that if I continued the edit warring, then I would face "administrative consequences" (which in no way, shape or form was ever implied to be anything as severe as a permanent ban), and I complied. So the first couple of lines of Starstuff's reasoning seem to try and justify my block my referring to something that was no longer an issue when it happened. (In regard to the last edit I made on Hagrid, I did not revert your edit or otherwise being overly cross, you stated that Hagrid's knowledge on the Fire-Breading potion did not reflect on Hagrid's ability to make potions, at which point I tried to accommodate you by changing it as to fit better with the events of Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery. And failed, it seemed, since my edit was undone again. I was in the process of linking a clip showing the scene specifically to Hagrid's talk page and inquire as to how you thought it to fit into the Magical abilities and skills section, which I would still kind of argue it does, if the game is to be considered canon. I never got that far, as you might imagine.

I am thereafter accused of badgering and harassing other users. This is, to put it at its mildest, a gross exeggragation. Again, I might have gone a little overboard on the debating, but at no point did I ever resort to personal attacks or crude language to get my point across, my last post at the Dawlish talk page where I had just lost a large amount of text and was really frustrated because of it notwithstanding. I also used the word "Dementor" metaphorically to emphasize how I found the removal of the information Ironyak1 insisted was "hyperbole" to have left the article somewhat crude and overly simplified. But upon replying to it, she did not give any indication to have taken it to heart, although I even apologized for it prior to the block. As irksome as you or they might find my occasional rants, I resent having the conditions of a conflict that are so easily sorted out by dropping me a talk page post blown out of proportions like this. If I am to be blocked indefinitively, I would like to have actually deserved it.  

If this was a collective decision, I must say that, because I am a dedicated, long-standing editor committed to the wiki with nothing but it's best interests at heart (even if we don't always see eye to eye on how to achieve it) and not some internet troll/vicious vandal, I am very disappointed at the treatment I have received and feel the "collective patience" Starstuff presented should have held itself to a higher standard in regard to how it treats actual contributors. As things currently stands, I cannot even edit my own talk page. I find this to be inappropriate, seen as how even HarryPotterRules1 can edit his talk page, and at the time he was blocked as a result of actual personal attacks and threats, he even appears to be the opinion that you were a "hypocritical blowhard" and described the admins on the wiki as "power hungry nutters". This is the sort of opinion that I neither share with him, or indeed have come close to express even as a "in-the-heat-of-the-moment-but-didn't-really-mean" kind of thing. I might be a stubborn debater, but the manner in which I was treated by Starstuff is very reminiscent of HPR1's threats to "silence" people he didn't like and/or did not agree with him, especially since I cannot even use my own talk page, write on the talk page or even participate on the discussion page, which has nothing to do with editing the wiki whatsoever.

Therefore, if this is not a collective decision and simply Starstuff looking over our discussions, rolling her eyes because she does not agree with me at all and simply blocked me out of annoyance, then I genuinely believe the wiki as a whole would truly benefit from the following proposal: In light of what I would argue is a gross violation of my basic human rights as far as being treated as a worthwhile human being is concerned, (even HarryPotterRules1 was permitted his talk page and offered a warning of "change or be kicked out", although his repeated misdemeanors was vastly more severe than my own, consisting of threats and personal attacks, as opposed as stubbornness in regard so simply having a differing opinion), I would strongly advise you to establish a new wiki policy stating that the decision of blocking editors, as opposed to vandals and internet trolls, is not a decision that any one admins have the opportunity to make alone, as a consensus in regard for permanent blocks of editors is more fair by far. With all this in mind, it would be very much appreciated if my block was undone at your earliest convenience so that Starstuff and I can among ourselves whatever issues he/she has with me through reasoned discussion like the adults we are. 

- Sincerely, Ninclow (talk) 16:29, March 20, 2018 (UTC)..

Last time I was blocked, I made a snide comment on the profile page of someone whom I percieved to be a troll late at night while tired under the assumption that I had been reading and were writing on their talk page, and did not realize I had confused the two before the block. That being said, I was also accused of calling this user "psychotic", and that is not what happened. She had written on her profile, which, as stated above, my dead tired dumbass thoguht was her talk page, that she wanted to marry Newt Scamander. If my memory serve me right, they had kept adding fanon to articles, which is why I was so annoyed at them. And ​​​​​​if you go back and look again, you will find that what I actually did was saying that if they genuinely had believed Newt Scamander to be a real person and someoen they would be physically capable of marrying, (again, with my misguided, self-righteous belief being that it was a troll ruining articles for the fun of it), then they would have been in the need of some help. And while I agree that it was very unnecessary and that I shouldn't have done it, that didn't make Ironyak1's assessment of the situation any more correct. It was a misunderstanding where I reacted unecessarily loudly, true, but even so, the situation was blown a bit out of propotions. Though I clearly was in the wrong on that occassion, the whole thing was presented as significantly worse than it was.
That being said, to claim that I weren't expecting "administrative consequences to be so severe" is not a defence at all, which is why I have not actually tried to use it as such. However, the fact of the matter is that when you break it down, the only thing I am actually guily of, is not to share your point of view, and that isn't really a proper reason to block someone, let alone permanently. Okey, I readily admit that I went the wrong way about expressing that opinion, but even so, as I've already stated above, I was told to stop edit warring, and by the time I was blocked, I already had. And it is still used to justify it. Furthermore, I also fail to see  in what shape or form is it "harassment" for me to stubbornly defend my point of view on a talk page? I can see the point about the edit warring, but believe it or not, if you felt like you had to  reply because it was "part of the job", but didn't want me to, all you needed to do was simply drop me a note on my talk page or just end the discussion on the artcile's talk page informing me that this or that issue weren't up for debate. 
The reason I find this block unfair has less to do with my expectations of administrative actions, and more to do with me simply feeling like someone just spat in my face, and spat at the years and years I have spent doing my best to contribute to the wiki. And I cannot for my bare life actually comprehend why anyone would do that to me. If I have been more stubborn than you liked, it is only because I tried to the best of my ability to ensure be thourgouh in my recording of information on a fictional world that have helped me throguh some very difficult times in the past and therefore have a very special place in my heart. And    as mentioned earlier, I have Asperger's Syndrom which can make social interaction a bit difficult. How am I supposed to know if Ironyak1's removal of what she felt to be "hyperbole" was an administrative decision or merely an opinion of hers? I mean, being an admin alone don't usually suffice to turn words into rules, so how were to know the difference between the two unless somebody actually stepped up and told me what was what? You might have a dificult time believing this in light of the block, but I am not some incorrigible bad guy hellbent on making your lives difficult. You can simply talk things out with me to solve an issue, granted you can take the time to be clear about the context in which you tell me you disagree. (As an opinion or decision). Because I can't always tell the difference as easily as everybody else. And if you now feel like reminding me how "many chances" I've been given, please, keep in mind that those warnings, it would appear, has fallen under the category of messages that has gone over my head because I wasn't properly aware of the context of "opinion or decision". But ​​​​if you tell me to stop something, I'll stop.You just have to be clear about what you mean.
What are the chances that you would consider letting me back in under certain conditions, at least as a "trail periode" to see if I am actually able to improve my conduct if given the chance to do so now that I have sort of gotten to the bottom of things? What if I agreed to not revert any more edits from the at all, and instead of changing information currently on the wiki, (only changing little things like typos) and stuck to recording new information like from the Hogwarts Mystery only, and/or adding details revealed news I find about the Crimes of Grindelwald. And instead of debating, if I believe something should be changed, without arguing about it, I could drop a quick yes or no question on the relevant talk page, and if you or any other admin agreed, I would edit it, as per their direction if necessary, and if they told me to leave it alone, I simply did?
Once, you came to my defence when HarryPotterRule1 made a less than friendly remark about me. You said that "Ninclow has made several helpful edits, and even though we have our disagreements, I recognise their efforts". If that assessment of me still holds true to any degree at all, then I would like to ask you to please allow me to try to prove to you that I can do so again without being disruptive or unproductive. If those conditions I just listed seem agreeable to you, that is Ninclow (talk) 07:53, March 21, 2018 (UTC)


Yes, I was, but the conduct you described preeceded the warning, and it is my understanding that a warning is an ultimatum, not an exit sign? I repeat, I recieved the warning about stopping edit warring, and I stopped edit warring. If either one of you had told me to stop discussing/debating on the talk pages, I would have stopped discussing/debating on the talk pages. What is it about showing some consideration for the fact that I struggle with a disability that means I need people to express themselves clearly that is so problematic for you?  Ninclow (talk) 17:04, March 21, 2018 (UTC)

If you have "several editors in the autism spectrum" but isn't one yourself, how would you know what is a valid or invalid "excuse", to use your own word? We are not speaking of some character flaw where I have some cognitive, chronic anger management issue, we're talking of a disability. I actually find it kind of baffeling that you seem to think that is completely irrelevant. And of course it was unapologetic, the warning and the response both came while we were both engaged in a prolonged, heated discussion that came dangerously close to boarder on an argument. Both of us where rather fed up and felt the other were really stubborn and unreasonable, albeit for different reasons. Have you never been crass while agitated/at the heat of the moment before? 
All you had needed to do if you wanted me to stop was tell me to. Ironyak1's warning is one thing for the aforementioned reason, but do you really think that if you, or Starstuff, or one of the other admins observing our quarrellling had dropped me a message telling me to stop, that I think so little of you that I would simply ignore it? What kind of person do you take me for, exactly? Ninclow (talk) 07:17, March 22, 2018 (UTC)

My personal "sockpuppet"... Edit

Hello again. Just wanted to write and apologize in advance. A friend of mine who was over here a couple of hours ago, and we did what we usually did: Just hang out, watched a movie, connected my PC to the TV so we could watch youtube videos on the big screen, etc. While he was here, I vented a bit about how upset I was over the block and nagged of all the edits I could never make, and wouldn't you know it, he tried to do me a solid by sneaking behind my back. About an hour before he left, the door bell rang, and it was one of the neighboring kids: His parents were at work, and his little brother had locked him out of their apartment, so while I tried to help him get hold of his dad at work since his phone had been left inside, Markus registered on the wiki using my PC to quickly register a user account with an fake email and VPN to leave a message on Ironyak1's wall. He was found out by me when he wasn't quick enough to exit the page when I got back inside (at which time he was just rounding off the message). Apparently, his scheme involved taking the list of names I had written down from the beta 2 version (and previously told him I had meant to add to the wiki alongside other wizarding families) and sort of "trick" Ironyak1 to add said information and then contact me this time tomorrow and go "tada" or something to cheer me up with a "you added it without adding it" sort of good news. Didn't work, because of course the fake IP was blocked wikia-wide and stuff, and I got kind of pissed off at him for it because now it might look like I tried to trick you guys. 

You aren't going to let me back in regardless, but I just don't want you to think I was that petty or childish. 

I don't know if you'd still like that list with the wizarding family names from Hogwarts Mystery (turns out he was honest about playing the third beta version, but not so much about where he was going to get the list from), it goes as follows:

Adams
Hill
Sanchez
Wilson
Murphy
Taylor
Bennett
Jamin
Harris
Rodriguez
Allan
Robinson
Campbell
Moore
Smith
Hall
Davis
White
Lopez
Scott
Phillips
Ortiz
Young
Marrtin
Rivera
Gonzalez
Roberts
Baker
Garcia
Evans
Martinez
Rogers
Jenkins
Carter
Cruz
Wright
Reyes
Butler
Sanders
Brooks
Morales
Thomas
Stewart
Collins
Foster
Jones
Perez
King 
Powell

Cheers! Ninclow (talk) 21:34, March 22, 2018 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Why is it that I'm not even allowed to partake in discussions? How can that possibly be 'disruptive' or 'non-productive'? Ninclow (talk) 20:23, March 28, 2018 (UTC)


... Yes, but it isn't like any of you ever made any real attempt at bringing any of this to my attention pre-ban or anything. I mean, if you had blocked me for one week, and said: "Ninclow, you got to stop this, becasue you do this, you do this, and you do this, and it's really getting difficult for us to do our jobs when we feel we have to sidetrack to deal with your inability to let things rest", do you really think I would just ignore you or something? You can say "Ironyak1 warned you" all you like, but how can you possibly expect me to have taken this to heart when I get a warning in the middle of a heated discussion. Do you really think me so dysfunctional that if one of the admins I weren't quarreling with had dropped me a note on my talk page telling me to stop, that I would have reacted just the same as I did with Ironyak1 while in the heat of the moment? I repeat, yes, I shouldn't have edit warred, but that don't change the fact that by banning me without even trying to talk over what the issue is, all you really did was demonstrating that Starstuff, rather than being "within her rights" to ban me, really was just capable of banning me because the block button is on the admin panel and she had access to it. Everyone else who gets a warning on their talk page get that little red hand to boot. How am I supposed to take Ironyak1 sufficently seriously when warnings is thrown casually in comment sections during an edit war and/or know to take it as an official warning when it is written in a manner that make it come across as Ironyak1 trying to use her admin status alone to be a "superior intepretor" of canon, something I know you have said the admins shouldn't do. 

For all your talk of "you can't use it as an excuse talk", I repeat, I have Asperger's Syndrome. I can't naturally read subtleties in communications, written or otherwise, so how can you reasonably expect me to learn anything when the person I quarrle with, not some objective third party seeing things are getting out of hand and stepping in, but the same person I am quarriling with, simply say "stop edit warring" and then expect me to just "know" my discussions on the talk pages are an issue? As stated above, I'm not a mind reader. I repeat, nothing would have stopped you from taking five to ten minutes and listed specifically what the issue(s) were and what you expected me to do about it on my talk page, but no, you were so vauge I didn't know what to really make of it, and here we are. Heck, you hadn't even needed to block me at all. Had you just said; "Ninclow, I want you to stop editing for a week and take a bit to cool off, take a breather and then look over your recent activities and tell me if you see something wrong with that picture", and I would have. I have more respect for you than you give me credit for. Ninclow (talk) 12:04, March 29, 2018 (UTC)

You are missing the point: Dumbledore 101, the choice between doing what is right and what is easy. As a consequence of me not being some incorrigible troublemaker hellbent on ruining the wiki but someone dedicated to contribrute to it and whom you could easily have talked to if either of you had bothered to do so, the only reason for blocking me would be because it made your day easier. I work at a cultural center, and sometimes we are visited by this man with Down's syndrome who grindes his teeth a lot, and it's the most horrible sound imaginable. It would be easy for me to just lock him out of the café if I wanted to, but I don't. I understand that sometimes, people have these shortcomings that can't be helped, and I find a way around this issue instead of dismissing the individual for having them. And Starstuff not liking my face isn't a good reason for blocking me, let alone permanently.

By telling me Asperger's "not an excuse", which is to completely disregard, trivialise and dismiss the reaility of my disability and the fact that the shortcomings that comes with them can easily be addressed and minimised by simply keeping an open line of communication, ​you are effectively telling me what a dysfunctional, wothless little retard I am, and how I am not worth your time. You don't say it directly, but that's all you accomplish when I'm blocked without due cause. Had I done anything even remotely close to being as severe as the personal attacks HarryPotterRules1 did, we wouldn't have this conversation. That would have been a sensible, reasonable cause for blocking someone that I would have accepted in a heartbeat. I was treated the same as him for no other reason that Starstuff came home from work, dead-tired, signed onto her account, saw me having an opinion conflicting with her fellow admin and not backing down (because Ironyak1 had failed to present a convincing argument why I was wrong), and decided; "Oh, screw it, I'm in no mood for this tongiht. BLOCK!"

I was blocked not because it was needed, it was simply easier to block me than to drop me a message telling me to stop and talk it over on the preconcieved idea that I wouldn't listen. And I think the wikia should hold itself to a higher standard. Had our positions been reversed, the thought of blocking people wouldn't even h7ave occurred to me. Ninclow (talk) 16:24, March 29, 2018 (UTC)

Okay, first off - I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. The "you"'s is referred to as the collective wiki/admin team, not the individual you. Sorry, my mediocrity in the English language somemtimes is a bit of a nuicence. That being said:
HarryPotterRules1: Regular bursts of anger directed at specific individual(s), personal attacks, threats, grudging, etc.
Me: ... A period of being too vocal in voicing an opinion not shared by the admins, but doing so the wrong way... 

Solution: Block them both permanently. 

How exactly is that "fair"? In any snese of the word? And that aside, saying that I was banned from not being able to let something go is actually only a little better than outright lying. Because it isn't that I can't drop it, I just didn't, exactly because you yourself said admins were not to be seen as chief interpreter of canon information, I thought Ironyak1 was wrong, and she failed to be sufficently clear about whether her alleged warnings was a "we admins don't like this, stop", as in a "because I say so" fallacy, or if it was a "we admins don't permit this", as in, enforcing the rules. I mean - seriously. I even tried making conditions that, if the block were to be undone, restricted how I edited so this can't happen again, as in.
What were your reply? Basically it was: "Sucks to be you". I can get behind that you tried to me patient and supportive of me back before the block, (though it would seem largely fell short on the second, though not for lack of trying), but I fail to see how "You want to get back in? You say you can change with proper direction? Well, too bad for you" is in any way supportive. So - yes, I feel I've been treated unfairly Ninclow (talk) 11:06, March 30, 2018 (UTC)


Ironyak's warnings were sufficiently clear;

Not saying I magically have stopped appreciating the fact that you're the Head Admin or stopped respecting your authority or anything but - who are you to dictate what a sufficently clear warning is? If she warned me, and I failed to realize that it was an actual warning, then quite obviously it wasn't clear enough. This is where those little red hand symbols used for waning literally everybody else comes into play.

you weren't blocked for disagreeing with us on any specific topic but for being argumentative and tiresome with conjecture after it was repeatedly explained to you in what ways logic, consensus, evidence, and policy were not on your side.

Oh, was I? If so, wouldn't a fair, supportive person consider actually approach me at some point and atually tell me that I was being "argumentative and tiresome" and be open for the possibility that the two of us could work out some kind of solution to that problem by simply talking to one another like the adults we are, instead of not saying anything, keep getting annoyed with me for wrongdoings I "repeatedly" did, without being aware of the fact, mind you, and then just lean back and be completely careface when someone blocks me permanently for those very reasons. As for everything you said were on your side and not mine, I was never explained why, I was explained that it simply was, with no evidence or reasoning behind any of the claims to give me any reason to think those claims were anything but hot air Ironyak1 let out in the heat of the moment. As for those points you made:

  • Logic: The logical thing to do, really, if you found me argumentative and tiresome, would be to tell inform me on how you felt so I could do something about it. Open communication: You keep saying Asperger's isn't an "excuse", and that's true: It is a disabilitiy. One which can be easily handled by keeping an open line of communication. And the "collective patience" didn't bother to. Logic dictates that if you are an adult, and you talk to an adult, the most reasonable course of action is to treat the other as an adult. I wasn't. I was tried like I was worthless, and I resent that. And besides, we're still on opposite sides of the bridge on the matter of what validity the alleged fallacies of yours have in regard to work of fiction, so that's a mute point.
  • Consensus: Never anywhere was it ever said consensus was that I was incorrect. I know Ironyak1 said I was incorrect, I know you gave impression of sharing that opinion, but since admins weren't supposed to be chief intepretors, how was I ever expected to have known the two of you constituted a consensus? Or that the entirety of the admin team, constituted a consensus? (I say 'entirety', because it would seem that being an admin means you sort of have to be on the same page about everything or risk 'undermining' the others).
  • Evidence: ... What evidence? I was served a bunch of "maybes", "perhaps" and "could be's". For me to say; "Dumbledore denoted him as an excellent Auror, he was allowed to guard the Minister for Magic. Aka, it's safe to say he were good at his job", is much, much more reasonable than whatever fanfictionalized scenarios you presented. They might be sound in your ears, but from where I stood, I failed to see how any of them were even remotely supported by any canonical source. Those scenarios weren't even theoretical, so what 'evidence' are you even talking about?
  • Policy: Okay, now I'm intrigued. What policy did I violate by disagreeing with Ironyak1?

... I don't see how you can even think that my confusion over this ban is even remotely comparable to my dissent about the content on the Dawlsih page .Do you know what would have been really constructive, Seth? If you had given ever the slightes, tiniest little hint that a future unblock request was even on the table instead of expecting me, once again, to be able to read minds. Had you just bothered to say; "I'm not going to unblock you Ninclow, but if you let it rest now, then maybe there's a chance you'll be given another chance in the future", then guess what I would've done then? This, Seth, this is why keep saying that if you had just talked to me, we wouldn't have been in this situation in the first place. I depend on communication, I can't see subtleties in communication, I depend on people just being straight with me. Ninclow (talk) 18:24, March 30, 2018 (UTC)

Contributions?Edit

Am I allowed to make suggestions for the HP wikia at least? Ninclow (talk) 10:00, April 4, 2018 (UTC)

You were so quick to reply earlier, so - is this a case of you not seeing my question of actively ignoring it? Ninclow (talk) 20:28, April 10, 2018 (UTC)

So - that's a yes on actively ignoring it then? Ninclow (talk) 00:17, April 13, 2018 (UTC)

Okay, can you please just tell me what I have to do to convince you guys to give me another chance? There's so much actual hyperbole and inaccurate information littered around the wikia that you haven't noticed that being able to see it without being able to fix it is actually kind of maddening. Ninclow (talk) 02:06, April 15, 2018 (UTC)

SERILOUSLY?! Ninclow (talk) 12:16, April 20, 2018 (UTC)

Hi. First, I wanna say that I've seen numerous of Ninclow's edits on HP Wikia and while I strongly disagree on numerous points, Ninclow IS right when saying that there's a lot of stuff that you just completely ignore on the wiki. For example, recently the page for the character "Bem" was vandalized and I've seen lots of edits since then, but this particular article, "Bem", still remains vandalized. --DCLM (talk) 15:08, April 24, 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say ignore, but still - Seth: Man, are you really going to hold such a grudge against me for being a falliable human being that it affects the quailty of the wiki? Seriously, will you just STOP ignoring me?! Ninclow (talk) 22:26, April 24, 2018 (UTC)

Also, I checked out the HP Canon Policy question about Hogwarts Mystery and - no, it isn't 3d tier canon, it is 2nd, at the very least; So what if Warner Bross produced the game, they have the rights for Harry Potter, so what does that have to do with anything? The difference between Hogwarts Mystery and the game adaptations of the seven Harry Potter books is that, the fact that the written narritive/dialouge just screams JK Rowling in places, this is a new story that cannot possibly contradict established lore because it is not a re-representation of a story known to us, but a whole new story with a few cameos from known canons. It theoretically could contradict the books, but the likelihood for that happening given that the storyline, while taking place at Hogwarts, stands on its own two feet with almost unlimited leeway, is almost zero. It don't repeat canon in a new medium, it exclusively adds to canon. As such, logic dictates it is as canon as any of the movies. If it is revealed Rowlnig wrote the "script", so to speak, it's as valid as the seven books themselves. Ninclow (talk) 05:21, April 25, 2018 (UTC)

Harry Potter Wiki is getting heavily vandalized with pornographic pictures by multiple accounts from the same person pretending to be the Discussion Moderator, Sapphire. Currently only one person is dealing with it, but can do nothing to prevent it from happening over and over. --DCLM (talk) 11:59, July 7, 2018 (UTC)

It keeps happening. And the people dealing with it can only revert back over and over. --DCLM (talk) 12:31, July 7, 2018 (UTC)

Go hang yourself in the closet —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennis'sdaughter (talkcontribs)

I don't know when this was written or to who it was directed at, but that was totally uncalled for! --DCLM (talk) 08:51, March 10, 2019 (UTC)

Data mining file archives? Edit

I beseech you. Should the fandom consider extracting/viewing/unpacking the archives of the game so we can discover what’s inside after all these years? It would be a great service to this community. Iscreamer1 (talk) 07:45, September 24, 2018 (UTC)

Take this up with Xentax/Zenhax, they may give more answers to you than my attempts. Iscreamer1 (talk) 21:08, September 26, 2018 (UTC)

Hi Seth,

I was wondering if it would be okay for me to use certain photos from the Titanic Adventure Out Of Time Wikia to create a book cover.

I also wanted to say that I noticed the .png files never seem to have the tag that says "This file is the public domain." I was just curious as to why that might be. 

Thanks!

MichaelJamesKoebnick (talk) 14:44, April 5, 2019 (UTC) 

Hi (Dan Tom Fox)Edit

Hi,Seth,don't know if you notice me,i wrote some comments a few days ago,i even wrote a lot in the Dust Wiki,pardon me for writing caps on it,i wasn't yelling incase you're wondering,just being a fan.

(71.8.94.175 16:47, March 18, 2020 (UTC))

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.