User talk:Libertycookies

On 22 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Politics of Harry Potter, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

--Allen3 ^talk 13:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A user seeming to have an interest in some of the same issues as you recently posted to the Harry Potter article. I thought maybe you might want to drop him/her a hand and help them find their way. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few things you need to know:

• The influences section is only for those books which Rowling has acknowledged as influences. Someone else simply saying that HP was inspired by such and such a book doesn't count.

• That is what the analogues section is for. If Rowling has not claimed a book as an influence on Harry Potter, but someone else has (preferably a lot of someone elses), then it can be listed as an analogue. If Rowling later admits that she was influenced by said book, then it can be shifted to influences.

• The order of the books in both the main sections is chronological.

• The "Other favorites" section is where to put those books that Rowling has not claimed influenced her work but which she simply says she likes very much. That's where Roddy Doyle goes.Serendi^podous 06:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If only to balance it out. Serendi^podous 06:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Fits nicely with Fox News' views. Libertycookies 17:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im noticing that VERY VERY few of the harry potter articles contain the themes and morals presented by the harry potter books. This isnt really original research, as themes themes have a basis of fact -(IE JK and the book). I think these are very important in the analysis of harry potter. do you think i should continue to argue case, or that this isnt really relavent to harry potter. Im just asking a fellow harry potter fan =D I also really like your philosophy theme on your User page. Philosophy and pacifism have really been an interest of mine since i was a child addy gAddy-g-indahouse 12:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just reading the article on non violence that wiki has, and i noticed that it has no philosphy in it. To have an article on nonviolence, completely constructed with facts, is like einstien's theory of relativity without the physics. the philosophy of nonviolence is like the c^2 in MC^2. Do you think we should do something about it, as we share mutual interests in philosophy and non violence? addygAddy-g-indahouse 12:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 13:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which search terms did you use? I've been trying to google it for months. Serendi^podous 15:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad transcript- keep an eye on it. (For the record it's "Juvenal" not "juvenile" Serendi^podous 08:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Libertycookies. I worded it slightly more strongly than you, but, I think, in the same direction. See the Politics of HP page. Keep it up. Best, Timothy Perper (talk) 01:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on standing up for proper sourcing. I just hope you understand that what you just said there is what I was trying to explain to you all those months ago. Seems we're singing from the same sheet now, so all's well. Your article is coming along very well. As regards the auction, I really don't have an opinion on it, because these things are always notoriously hard to second-guess. But yes, I think it will go for over the predicted price. By how much, I can't say. Serendi^podous 17:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it will be deleted. Right now it's in that same netherworld position that Religious debates over the Harry Potter series is in, basically listing the contrary opinions of a select group of people, with little information on the true relevance or impact of their views. Such information is likely to emerge in time. Serendi^podous 13:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The book sold for 2 million pounds, or roughly 40 times the predicted price. Serendi^podous 16:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Although the

Not sure if mentioning her philanthropy really comes under the banner of "politics"; also removed the Influences and analogues link from early life section on same grounds. It doesn't really matter which links are in the article or not though, because both politics... and influences... already link to the article via the Harry Potter template at the bottom. So all's well. Serendi^podous 19:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Legal disputes" article was originally a subsection of the "JK Rowling" article, and, in accordance with "summary style" rules, when the legal disputes section was branched off, a summary paragraph and a link to the new article had to be included in this one, as per the article's FA nom. I must say I didn't really want it summarised here, since it has less to do with JK Rowling than Harry Potter, but there you are.Serendi^podous 21:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just spent a great deal of time and effort getting

Once again Lib, I had to clean up one of your references. Your habit of not bothering to reference properly is not only annoying, it's also incredibly inconsiderate, as it basically says, "I'll just add whatever I like and let other people do the tedious work." If you're not willing to get your hands dirty like the rest of us, don't keep expecting the rest of us to do your work for you. Serendi^podous 23:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:A-fine-old-conflict.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Guest9999 (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:A-fine-old-conflict.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to

fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale

.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]