User talk:ChristyCorr

From UnknowableWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

To do


Ship reminders:

  • Heroes - Harry/Neville (formerly Hero and Zero)
  • Painted Red - Ron/Dean (formerly Forging Arachnophobia)
  • Prince and Pauper - Ron/Draco (was Weasel and Ferret )
  • Twilight - Lucius/Remus (Was Addictive Conflict )
  • Greater Good - Albus Dumbledore/Gellert Grindelwald
  • Photograph - Dean/Colin
  • Lakini's Juices - Parvati/Pansy


  • Delete roonil template; wazlib/ref when applicable, etc.
  • Rewrite disambig help page.
  • Delete templates we don't use.
  • Change system messages so that they'll be more helpful, and link to our help pages.
  • Sort help pages into help and project, and change namespace when necessary.
  • Check Griselda Harmonia etc. (middle name)


I used to watch Numb3rs when I was in Baltimore. At that time, they also had some pretty good math problems and riddles on their website. I was living with two other statistics guys, we used to obsess a little over those. --Kerstin 00:49, 10 June 2008 (PDT)

Of course! It's unisex! --Kerstin 03:02, 11 June 2008 (PDT)

Do you think all those newbies are real, or have the spambots been programmed to get more realistic names? --Kerstin 14:41, 12 June 2008 (PDT)

Do you think we need a page for the cupboard under the stairs? --Kerstin 09:11, 17 June 2008 (PDT)

Sounds good, Except for the fact that I wouldn't want to link anybody to number four, Privet Drive. --Kerstin 12:32, 17 June 2008 (PDT)

I checked GF, and the Lexicon is definitely right. Don't know where my dates came from. BTW, I can't access the Lexicon timelines, only their day-to-day calendars. I know I used their timelines to make the August page, maybe the mistake was there. But probably I just mixed something up. --Kerstin 04:16, 21 June 2008 (PDT)

Did you change your signature? I will miss the Evil Overlady days! Also, did you see this? What do you think? --Kerstin 08:50, 22 June 2008 (PDT)

Weird. Does that mean I'll get closer to Sara? --Kerstin 06:15, 2 July 2008 (PDT)

Dammit. --Kerstin 06:19, 2 July 2008 (PDT)

I just tried to access the main page with Internet Explorer. It looks totally screwed up. The two boxes are not next to each other; the green one is below the blue one! Can you check if that always happens with IE, or if it's just me?

ETA: It's got something to do with the Featurd Fanart. IT seems that with my IE settings, the image is too wide and therefore the green box no longer fits next to the blue one; so it's moved down. Hm. Do you know if there's a way to scale the image smaller for smaller screens? I don't want to make the image smaller for everyone just for a minority of people with small screens... --Kerstin 07:38, 5 July 2008 (PDT)

I googled for Harry Potter wiki today, and we are on page 1! Normally, we only make page 2.--Kerstin 03:37, 10 July 2008 (PDT)

I'd like to talk about restructuring the timeline. I think you agree that it can't really stay the way it is; it needs some order. Personally, I think we should only have single pages for the important years, where there are a number of events, i.e. the years for the books and maybe some First War years. For the rest, we could have century pages, maybe decade pages for some decades of the 20th century. Also: Could we get JKR's Wizard of the Month pictures, or is there a copyright problem? --Kerstin 09:09, 15 July 2008 (PDT)

No problem. Let me know when you have time to Skype about it. ETA: I made the 12th century page as an example for what it could look like. Basically, it's just like the year pages for the school years. I think we could turn Founder Era and Riddle Era, possibly also Dumbledore and Marauder Era, into pages instead of categories. Trio Era is of course much too big. --Kerstin 05:07, 21 July 2008 (PDT)

Sure. Would that mean the Trio years would still be in Category:Trio Era, or just in Category:Timeline? --Kerstin 06:49, 21 July 2008 (PDT)

Wiki bugs? You don't mean this baby? *huggles wiki protectively* --Kerstin 05:43, 9 August 2008 (PDT)

Got your email. That is so, so weird. Everything works just fine for me (no matter which account I use). Can she edit other pages? --Testaccountkerstin 06:44, 9 August 2008 (PDT)

Between 6 1/2 and 8 hours. Just how idly are you wondering? --Kerstin 09:39, 31 August 2008 (PDT)

You should DO IT! (Sebastian has announced that he will flee if you should come. He is scared of you. You should be glad, some shreds of your evil overlady dignity have survived!) --Kerstin 13:14, 31 August 2008 (PDT)

Well, I promise I'll tie him to a chair or something when you come. Mmm, kinky. Also, talk pages chat is love. --Kerstin 19:08, 31 August 2008 (PDT)

I'm sure there are a lot of short projects you could do. I could make suggestions! *grins evilly* Like, do some semi-important character, like Cho, or Arabella Figg, or Fleur or Scrimgeour or Ernie Macmillan, something like that, so that we can feature them! (Alternatively, you can try to boil down Voldy's page to feature-length, but I guess that might be harder than writing one of the others from scratch. --Kerstin 09:14, 1 September 2008 (PDT)

I think we should. --Kerstin 03:08, 6 September 2008 (PDT)

Do you have the CS DVD with the interactive timeline? --Kerstin 06:11, 8 September 2008 (PDT)

About the Timeline: I was thinking of maybe moving Ancient Celts to "Ancient Britain and Ireland"; mainly because all the Celtic heroes mentioned are from Britain and Ireland, and because Ollivanders was founded 382 BC, and we have to locate that somewhere on the Timeline. We could also put that date in Ancient Celts, but it's not strictly a Celtic date. --Kerstin 11:47, 14 September 2008 (PDT)

Yes, that sums it up. --Kerstin 03:02, 20 October 2008 (PDT)

Could not agree more. How's London? Apart from being harassed by antiques and (dare I say it?) sick of shopping? --Kerstin 03:10, 20 October 2008 (PDT)

I am SO in love with this book. I don't care (well, I do, but not much) about the tales, but OMG, Dumbledore essays! Random tidbits! First names! Dates! Enlarged ashwinders! So much love! ETA: I thought about that, too. We probably should. I just don't have a good idea for a category name. And a category for that category. Aso: How do we call the different chapters and the Dumbledore stuff for citations? So far I've cited everything as BB, but we can't do that. --Kerstin 12:04, 6 December 2008 (PST)

I think it was all in caps in the book, but I'm in the French Alps and I don't have one with me. There is no way to choose a caps style, because the words are split up at random. It's either all caps, or just capitalise the first letter of the sentence. There's no such thing as special capitalisations for headings, or anything like that, in German. --Kerstin 09:49, 22 December 2008 (PST)

For the record, I'm not sure you even mentioned PI while I was in Brazil. Ever. *grins* --Eos 09:59, 5 January 2009 (PST)

*laughs* All right, then. But you didn't really mention the Wiki much while I was there. You didn't even make me proofread your Dumbledore article—which, if I remember correctly, was on the list of things to do... --Eos 10:41, 5 January 2009 (PST)

*poke* --Angel 13:27, 9 January 2009 (PST)

1. is someone tailing you-know-who's edits? i refer not to voldemort. 2. do you want to give me an easy tasklist to ease back into this thing/ i miss it. *grins* --Sara 11:13, 31 January 2009 (PST)

Working on my To-Do list. Why the fuck is there so much? (Also. Um. I don't remember how to wiki. Like, really.) --Eos 19:09, 31 January 2009 (PST)

By the way. All articles labeled with "roonil" have been otherwise labeled. At least, I think they have. --Eos 19:34, 31 January 2009 (PST)

Sounds good! --Sara 20:03, 31 January 2009 (PST)

Empty object pages, but I'm probably not going to start tonight, because... well, I don't have to tell you what time it is, and unlike seasoned insomniacs, my brain doesn't work quite so well at this hour. --Sara 20:15, 31 January 2009 (PST)

Actually, this is fun, because I feel like I know what I'm doing again! Trust me, I can't wait to get to the slash ships. However, you may want to look at the "personality" section on Lav-Lav; if you feel it should be left at all, it needs citations, and I don't have my hard copies. Besides, you'll know off the top of your head or something, but my automatic knowledge was waned. *grins* --Sara 12:22, 20 February 2009 (PST)

...Er... you wouldn't happen to be able to email me the e-books again, would you? *grins* Mine seem to be ...gone. --Sara 13:21, 20 February 2009 (PST)

Thanks, I received the books. And, er, weighed in with our new editor, hopefully you will give me your stamp of approval? *laughs* Also, I don't know why, but the image of you going to a party is just kinda weird. --Sara 23:23, 20 February 2009 (PST)

It's too long-winded to put here. Could I have a word with you over e-mail? ( Harp

Don't think even for a second I don't see what you did there! *chants mantra* Must. Not. Watch. New. Show. Before. Thesis. Is. Finished. So--there's a dragon. Ha! Since when do I care about dragons? --Kerstin 14:04, 24 March 2009 (PDT)

I do understand, of course!

You're completely right. I didn't expect that to be left there, no. However, I pose this question-which is the most unrealistic of all the canon ships then? I have evidence as to why Ron and Hermione wouldn't work, and while I accept that it's what Rowling chose, I believe that if I went about stating this properly (as in, with a well worded, logical essay about the cracks in the ship).

saying that the "true nature of their relationship [is] bickering, cursing, hurtful comments, and tears" -I ask you, friend, is this comment canonically untrue? Have we ever seen them resolve an argument, I mean actually see them resolve it? Please point me to this because i have never seen it. "Me and Hermione have stopped fighting" is not a resolution, it is ceasefire. Neither learn, neither grows, nothing gets resolved and it is unhealthy.

I have another request- edit the "controversy" section I added, do. But please, edit it fairly and don't just delete it. Because those facts deserve air time. Especially if you allow those "delusional" comments to slide. I am not a Harmony fan (or even a Het fan as Heterosexual ships are distasteful to me) but the bashing and "delusional" stuff is getting very old.

Also, you might want to look over my edits to the slash ships, just in case you don't like those either.

Regarding "canon ship" I'm working with the definition of permanent canon, not a one-time Yule ball date or half-whispered innuendo. Otherwise, Minerva/Albus, Parvati/Ron and Padma/Harry are canon ships, as well as Filch/Pince.

I'll try not to feel as though it's persona, because you said it wasn't. Still, this fandom has a history, and you can't blame a guy for taking certain things as insults. But if you say it wasn't, I'll just have to believe you. I'd also like to point out that I believe you have a number of Canon-Nazi Herons working here, as evident by the way someone (don't know if it was you or someone else) went ahead and erased all of those edits. Not just edited- erased. I have a hard time believing the wiki wants to preserve the neutrality of the articles while erasing (with no discussion) certain things and not even touching the section that says "but it wasn't until Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince that all but the most delusional Harmonians accepted Ron/Hermione."

In case you don't understand why that's not neutral, I'll explain (though I'd made it clear in the article edits). 1- Delusional is an insulting term. It doesn't allow for preference, but implies heavily that liking one ship over another is wrong or "crazy". 2- In my edit, I made it perfectly clear that all Harmony shippers want to do is keep to themselves and read fanfiction. You erased that as well, as though that somehow attacks another ship.

If it was that insulting, it could have been edited to be made more neutral, the way I edited the Lavender page so that it went from painting her as a brainless slut to a more likable character. Anticipating something like this, though, I saved the controversy section and I'd really appreciate it if there could be some kind of discussion on it. But, as I said before, I have a feeling die hard, my-way-or-nothing Herons are here. I just want to bring another perspective. Unless, of course, you want just another mugglenet.

Your edits to the H/Hr page were much more fair, really. One small thing though- is it really necessary to have all negative links? Fandom Wank isn't the most accepting place by any means and there are pleasant Harmony fans out there that do, as I said, want nothing more than to be left alone. Also, even though it doesn't mean anything as far as canon goes, the article would be more balanced (not neutral, just balanced) if you added, say, this little thing- "" If you want, I can find more sources, but ONTD is pretty reliable. It would help the article a lot and it would say a lot about the fairness of your wiki. As Sirius said, if you want to judge a man's character, look at how he treats is inferiors, not his peers. And Harmony is definitely a heavily bashed ship. - [Harp]

I don't want to be bitchy about this, I think it's great that a sociology student is trying to do something on fanfic, but truthfully, if it was any other subject,I know I'd mock this survey relentlessly. First off, the questionnaire is obviously designed to generate some descriptive quantitative summary statistics. Summary statistics are useful only if you have any means of assuring that your sample can be generalized to the population as a whole. The population as a whole, as defined by her, are HP fanfic authors. But the people who fill out her survey are not representative of the whole of HP fanfic authors, and she has no way at all to find out what kind of authors did fill out her surveys and what kind of authors did not. I would presume that the authors who fill out her survey are a) older than the average author b) LJ users c) academic d) have more online contacts, through which they found the poll. There might be other factors. Point is, it's not a random sample. All she can do with the data is say that "90 percent of the people who answered my survey were female." Well, that tells me nothing. She has no way of determining whether that is indicative of the gender balance in the fandom as a whole, or whether females were just more likely to stumble upon her survey. Getting a representative sample of fanfic authors would be really hard, and would involve major prior research and cooperation with several large fanfic archives. That always happens when you target an unknown online community. The other thing that bugs me are the questions themselves; she's not done her homework. There are standard question to find out about a person's social background in international surveys, so that the data you have is a) accurate and b)comparable with data from other studies. Her questions do not conform to those standards, they look like she invented them and did not put much work into doing that. Take the income question: she doesn't even specify if she wants gross or net income, household or personal income, income just from work or from all kinds of sources (like parental financial support). Not to forget the issue of self-employed people. You have to clarify that, otherwise one person will understand the question differently than the next one. I gave her my net income, which is 40% lower than my gross income. I might as well have given her the gross figure. In conclusion, the answers on the income question cannot be used. I have similar issues with her other demographic questions. And the questions about fanfiction were very general, in my opinion. If you do set up this survey, you could ask some more detailed questions.

What I think she should have done, given her limited resources, and the fact that this is "just" a master's thesis: A qualitative study, not a quantitative questionnaire. Qualitative studies are studies in which you try to get in-depth insight into a topic. In her case, that would have meant interviewing 10, maybe 20 fanfic authors at length. They would not have been a random sample either, but she would have known a great deal about each of them, and that could have answered important questions, like how entering an online fandom can change your life, why they did it, why they write, why they chose HP. Qualitative studies get at mechanisms, they tell stories. That's always meaningful, even if it can't be generalized. Maybe her interviews would have shown that 15 of 20 people said that writing fanfiction has improved their self-confidence. Then she would have known that a sizeable number of fanfic authors feel that writing boosts self-confidence. She would not have known if it was really 3/4, because her sample wasn't random, but that's not important, because she knows that it has that effect for some, and that in itself is valuable information. Summary statistics have no meaning if they are not generalizable. Also, you have to remember that the scientific community knows next to nothing about online fandoms. The first thing you need is a good understanding of the phenomenon, and that does not come from some aggregate statistics, but from in-depth interviewing and content analysis. A good quantitative questionnaire relies on the scientist knowing what questions she needs to ask and what the answer categories should be. That means you have to know your topic very well. That knowledge needs to be gathered first, and it must come from qualitative research.

I'll stop here. It's obviously not an easy subject. What always bugs me is that people tend to think that, because sociology studies everyday topics, everybody can do it. Just swan in and ask some questions. It's not that easy. In fact, it's really, really hard to do it right, and it takes years of training. And then it's also really hard to explain to non-sociologists just why something won't work, because there's just a lot of background information involved. --Kerstin 03:37, 17 April 2009 (PDT)

Well, that's not statistics, that's research design. Statistics is what comes after. But yeah, it's not as simple as people think. And I say just a master's thesis not because that makes it less valuable, but because that means she's got limited time and resources. She has a few months, no money and no personnel. That means that some projects are just too big to be done well under those circumstances. Also, I might be wrong here, but the way the study is designed, I don't think she wants to stay in research. The master's thesis is most likely the only scientific project she'll ever do. I thought about writing to her, but since my critique basically amounts to "forget the whole thing and do something else" and she won't have time to do that, I thought it would not be very helpful. The thing is, nearly every sociology student in Germany and Austria gets a master or an equivalent, and the degree demands that you do a scientific research project, even though the vast majority of sociology students don't want to become scientists. It's kind of pointless for most, but you have to do it. I just hope that she'll finish, get a decent grade, and then get a job in a non-scientific field. --Kerstin 09:33, 17 April 2009 (PDT)

We need to talk about romance judging in HGA. That's much too much to ask of anyone. I have a couple of ideas about random assignments -- that would ensure the objectivity of everything. But we need to discuss the feasibility of this. get back to me on Skype? --Kerstin 05:24, 26 May 2009 (PDT)

You did everything right (also, I like the rainbowiness of the table). I am back from camping now, so meeting online should get easier. --Kerstin 00:43, 2 June 2009 (PDT)

Nominations are still open, I think. Can you close them? --Kerstin 01:14, 3 June 2009 (PDT)

I'm thinking of editing the Harry Potter movie pages but wasn't really sure what information would be needed on them. Any tips? --User:RL4SBnotNT

Re: All those spells: I wouldn't presume too much. My suggestion is, create a page if it's not explicitly stated that it's the same spell, but mention something to the effect of "it is very likely that this is book canon spell name" on the new page and add "it is very likely that this is Pottermore name" to the old one. --Kerstin 07:23, 14 September 2011 (PDT)

OMG, there are people alive here!! I'd thought it was completely abandoned. Anyways, I was just having a lot of fun with the cosplays article... I didn't really think it was legit, but there are a lot of crack articles around here. Anyways, I don't mind you deleting it, but do you have some record of it anywhere? I did put a lot of work into making it and would like to have it to put up somewhere else. ~Irvin - thanks a bunch! ~Irvin

Personal tools