Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/Archive 18

message: The whole book (one huge file with photos of all 600-something pages, archive password "goatse") is posted here:
<snip>
I am compiling a list of ALL websites that do NOT carry a copy of HP7 in advance. The list is rather short and getting shorter every minute...
I think JKR should have rather spent 9 million of that reported 10 million UKP sized security war chest on buying 40 Ferraris and tell people that if you get an advanced copy, do not leak but bring it to us and you drive away in such a nice flame-red car. There wouldn't be any leaks, as 1 million UKP security effort would still prevent massive copy-thefts and the less than 40 successful snatchers would keep mum and happy collecting their supercars. Why, oh, why simple and splendid ideas seldom occur to even the smarter of people? 82.131.210.162 08:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The end is nigh 

message: I recommend the article inclusion of leak info to be tied to London bukmakers's behaviour. They are backing their actions with hard money. If they are massively pulling, invalidating and/or cancelling-repaying all the HP7 related bets, like "Harry knocks out Aberforth's horcrux goat with Pettigrew's silver hand - we take odds 1:35" then we know for sure HMS Harry Potter VII is about to capsize due to the many leaks.
I think Bumbury and Sholacetick spokespeople will deny no matter what, even if leaking tanks are rolling all over their bunker. So they are not a good reference. 82.131.210.162 11:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said, they're trying to save face. It's too legit. It cannot be a fake. If it is a fake, you will never witness a greater media hoax in your lives. The Frederick 11:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, are we ever going to see a bigger book launch in our lives? It would be a good way to run interference against other leaks. Also, have you not been around for long? Just about anything can be made to look "legit." People have gotten really talented in the area of trolling other people.76.201.150.91 13:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: are we ever going to see a bigger book launch in our lives? Assuming our civilisation lasts, and there isn't a major economic crash on the scale of the Great Depression, and you're under about sixty, yes, almost certainly. (In other respects, I quite agree.) Marnanel 14:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommendation for leak confirm method 

message: There is a video on funnyordie website, where two guys are shown next to an open HP7 book AND PALLETS OF BOXED HP7 BOOKS and they say (spoiler removed) and they recite a short book summary which is different from the full-photo leak.
Russians on IRC allege the 600+ page photo leak is an elaborate desinformation campaign by the publishers to confuse leakers.
:Ok, I've seen that video. I find it fascinating that they show you the books, and then just sum it up instead of opening it and showing it to us. From what I've heard, the book that was photographed was stolen by LUElinks. The Frederick 12:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The full HP7 book photo leak may indeed be fake 

message: Is it okay if i set up a bot for archival here? Say a period of 14 days or something? Simply south 12:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well this page is already 62 kB after only 5 days, and I archived about 64k worth into Archive #16 about 16 hours ago, so every 14 days?  And the book isn't even released yet.  I expect we might need daily archiving for the next week to 10 days, just to keep the page size manageable.  I've been doing it "manually" (and from the top down) for the last few archives.  --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 13:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 3 days then? Simply south 13:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: definitely daily or every two days, now that we are so close to the release this place will be swamped with leaks and whatnot dr.alf 13:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 2 vs 1. I'll set up 1 day archival. Simply south 13:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Do you think size and number of threads quota should also be set? Simply south 13:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a way to set an archive bot to happen when the length reaches say 125-130k, essentially lopping off the "top half" of around 64k, preserving the "bottom half" until it reaches 128-ish again?  That is essentially the strategy I have been using manually.  --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 13:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the looks of the bot guide, the archive size can be set, before moving on and the current talk page will be reduced. I am not quite understanding the counters parameters when rereading. Look under example 2. Btw, the userpage is an example and the bot can be applied to talk pages. Read all. Simply south 14:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm just concerned that the - umm - fit hasn't really hit the shan yet (apologies to those folks in southern china), and we may already need to think about daily archiving, especially if even more leaks and spoilers appear between now and the 21st.  Once the book is released, there will be almost a competition between the early readers who will be intent on posting chapter-by-chapter analyses and plot summaries, not to mention the (X KILLS Y AND Z) spoilers planted by trolls.  Not sure what the right formula is, especially since some very valid active discussions may end up getting crowded out and archived as a result of more nonsense posts.  It's a toughy - and probably unprecedented in wiki-history.  It really says something that there are 4 archive pages for Talk:Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2 years after release), and already 16 pages for this one, and possibly reaching 20 before it is even released.  --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 13:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I've already added the code (just below the archives) and set it for one day. What should happen now that it is twice on this page? Simply south 14:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I merged them to the one at the very top, and set it for 1 day as you did. You should put archiving code at the top, at least in the top section, so that when someone edits just the first section they can see that it's there. If you look at the code I put there, it illustrates how to automatically move the the right numbered archive as the archives fill up. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows#_ref-Farewell-to-Harry_1
The quote is cut off, the last bit looks like a normal paragraph (not indented)... if someone could fix that. I'm still new, I might mess things up. =P - Biomech 13:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. The Frederick 13:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. - Biomech 14:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error 

message: Why do leaks even need to be posted on here? Can't people just wait until Saturday? Simply south 17:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is in Encyclodedia. It is not the job of wikipedia to "protect" the harry potter books in any way, shape, or form. The alleged leaks are clearly relevent to this artical so they should be mentioned. Stingmans 18:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not against posting reports of leaking, but as for posting actual (possible) plot ahead of time: speaking as a person and book reader, instead of a Wikipedian, we should weigh the miniscule gain it would give against how badly it would make us dicks. --Kizor 18:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anyone's suggesting that the actual content of the leaks should be posted here ahead of time. Apart from anything else, I suspect we would then be starting to stray into legally dubious territory. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 18:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: However, as per the applicable section in Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#So-called.2C_soi-disant.2C_supposed.2C_alleged.2C_purported:  Alleged (along with allegedly) and purported (along with purportedly) are different from the foregoing in that they are generally used by those who genuinely have no predisposition as to whether the statement being cited is true or not. Newspapers, for instance, almost universally refer to any indicted but unconvicted criminal as an alleged criminal. Therefore, there is no neutrality problem with using them. However, there may be a problem of ambiguity — they should only be used where the identity of the alleger (sic) is clear <--- in this case the person making the allegations (i.e. the identity of the person who posted the spoiler is unclear).  Therefore, it is an invalid to post the news of the supposed spoiler.  Just because a "legitimate news source" has reported it, does not make it any more credible.  If I posted something on my blog that I made up and claimed it was real, I don't think it would take much to get it published in a newspaper since they are constantly searching for any "news" about the latest book...all the hype helps sells papers.  So, the "leak" is from an extremely AMBIGUOUS source, which is direct contravention to the policy I reference above.  Ccrashh 18:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ccrash, as I've mentioned in my edit summary and above, I went to take a look at the LATimes source (because I agree, up until now, it's been none-too-strongly cited). However, I would like to clarify something: the 'allegation' is in reference to the uploader, who is yet to be found guilty of anything in court, and it would therefore presumably be a legal faux pas to claim unilaterally that he was guilty. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 18:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, please note that the point of verifiability is exactly that. The information must be verifiable using a reliable source, with no regard for truth. See the opening sentence of WP:V. Now, I realise that this is, to an extent, an aphorism, and that we should strive for truth, but there's a reasonable source now for this claim and if Scholastic is indeed taking legal action, then that suggests that there is more than a little truth to it. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 18:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leak query 

message: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/17/books/17cnd-potter.html?ref=books
Could that be used as a source? - Biomech 19:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (EDIT CONFLICT) Absolutely. I've added it as a source, and used it to rewrite that particular section of the article a little. Thanks! Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 19:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, sweet. Thanks dude. =D - Biomech 19:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding the web leak to article? 

message: I've filed a request for full page protection. The vandalism is getting silly. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 23:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that. It's going to get worse anyways, best the page is protected sooner. - Biomech 23:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The reviewing admin declined the request, but pointed out that the decline was due to its being discussed (at considerable length) here at WP:ANI. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 23:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also added this page to my watchlist to watch for problems, so if there is any sort of concerted attack and I am online I can protect it right away. I hope that we will be able to keep the vandals at bay here without locking the page for everyone, but it will depend on how many vandals there are. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The vandals have already begun replacing the Plot Overview sections on the other HP book pages with Deathly Hallows spoilers.  We must hide archers inside of a pantomime clitoris.  'Tis the only way to keep the vandals out. Goatsmoke 00:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RPP 

message: Can vandals please stop talking about "spoilers" because it is not fun looking through the whole page for every single bit.Wii2-13 01:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're shouting at the sea. Girolamo Savonarola 03:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Request 

message: I'd like to formally protest the full protection which has just recently been applied to the page. Both the discussion at WP:ANI and the WP:RFPP seemed not to conclude in favor of it. In RFPP it was outright rejected, while the discussion at ANI seemed to lean towards status quo at the moment. Yes, there has been some recent vandalism, but it has also been applied liberally across other Potter pages, and all have been tackled very quickly. This page's semi-protection kept vandalism comparatively low as was. Furthermore, there have been a handful of substantive edits occurring even in the last 24 hours and it seems reasonable to expect that there will be plenty more to add as news coverage of all aspects of the book only increases and interviews continue with key personnel. Were we getting pounded constantly with non-stop ceaseless vandalism I'd be in favor of a temporary (24 hrs or less) protection, but I don't think the current level of vandal activity warrants this level. Thank you, Girolamo Savonarola 06:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objection to full protection 

message: references:
*Straw Poll (archived)
*ANI discussion of Full Protection of the page
*ANI objection to protection
*RFPP - Protection for DH article
*RFPP - Unprotection for DH article - declined
*RFPP - Protection for HP articles in general - declined
The poll was moved to an archive while I was typing a comment, and since it's bad form to edit archived information, I'll make my comment here.
::Please discuss the issue.
For the record, those involved in the voting were discussing the issue.  Voting and discussion are not exclusive of each other, every single person who voted made a comment supporting their vote.  Despite calling it a "straw poll", it was indeed a genuine discussion with an added element of voting. - Ugliness Man 06:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fair. I feel a bit bad about stopping that discussion, but it seemed the only way to end the voting was to end the entire process, as it had already strayed far into voting territory. I apologize for stopping you in mid-edit. Regards.--Chaser - T 06:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a problem with the poll to begin with - we were already well into a discussion at WP:ANI regarding this matter. And it was more a discussion and less a vote with minimal comment. Girolamo Savonarola 07:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: As I said, the discussion predates that (to my knowledge) and was announced there. Was the poll linked at WP:ANI? Why was it only open for less than a day? Also, I have major problems with this because a full protect seems to go directly against protection policy. Girolamo Savonarola 07:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: -Added reference links at top.  Thanks. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 07:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  response to poll objection 

message: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070718/ap_en_ot/books_potter_spoilers_10
:Harry Potter spoilers proliferate
:By HILLEL ITALIE, AP National Writer  Tue Jul 17, 9:56 PM ET
:NEW YORK - In the final days before the world learns whether Harry Potter lives or dies, spoilers — or those pretending to spoil — are spreading on the Internet. 
:On Tuesday, digital images of what may be the entire text of "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," including 36 chapters and a seven-page epilogue, were circulating among Web users. The book was apparently photographed as it lay on a carpet speckled with green and red, a hand at the bottom holding down the pages.''
—Wasabe3543 07:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note the use of phrases "digital images of what may be" and "apparantly".  So far, still no reliable news source confirming a genuine leak. - Ugliness Man 07:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If real, this would be the most serious breach of Potter privacy since the first book was published in 1997.
—Wasabe3543 08:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  These images have become notable and newsworthy in themselves, and therefore should be written about in this article to a greater extent than right now,  As people have said above that they are unverifiable and not citable: don't cite the images, cite every major newspaper in the world that is talking about them. Joshdboz 14:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article on the leak 

message: I find it illogical to protect something that is a current news category item and further is about to be released, there will be a torrent of editing and correction over the next few days; now is the time to refine the article not lock it up.  Please remove the protection on this page.  Jachin 08:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Support, as semi-protected - as before. Girolamo Savonarola 08:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose: The only three Harry Potter articles I've looked at today amid the discussion around protection have been the main page, this one, and JK Rowling. All three are protected in some way, this one fully. I can only recommend using this, which shows that in less than an hour there have been 50 edits - and this while most of the US is asleep, and three days before the books release. While lots of the edits will be improvement, sleeper accounts are already causing a problem. RHB - Talk 09:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which would explain why all the vandalism was swiftly reverted? There are hundreds, if not thousands, of users watching this page. No vandalism has survived more than a minute or two. Check the logs. Girolamo Savonarola 09:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I'd like to remind everyone that vandalism is specifically only to be used as a pretext for semi-protection, not full protection. It was noted at the WP:ANI discussion that the George W. Bush article has always been semi-protected - even during the elections, and that's a far more controversial article that see vastly more eyes and receives tremendous amounts of editing non-stop. Girolamo Savonarola 09:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Unprotection 

message: I admit I have no evidence or proof of this, but from what I know:
- Firstly, the leak was made on the 16th, at the latest (that was when it arrived on bittorent)
- From what I understand, the photos were first shown on LUElinks, then on 4chan, before released to bittorent.
- It may be worth mentioning (and the LA times source mentions this) that the subpoena was sent to Gaia Interactive Inc
Since I cant see any concrete sources, I suppose this information cannot be useful.  But I would at least suggest moving the details about the leak from the introduction into the "Controversy", perhaps just leaving one line there.  There is also no need for the chapter titles: No other Potter book has them, so its unnecessary. Hpmons 08:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also rapidshare.de. I believe this is "European website" mentioned in this story.—Wasabe3543 09:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I heard that LUElinks stole the thing from a library. The Frederick 10:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How the hell does a website steal something from a library? What is it, skynet?—Wasabe3543 11:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was LUELinks. No doubt about it. I can't think of any other community with enough manpower and malicious enough to do that. Dskzero 13:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It did go LUELinks -> 4chan -> bittorrent. And Zero, I take it you've never been on /b/. Will (talk) 14:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The source of the leak 

message: "Harry and Hermione search for the sword in Godric's Hollow, as well as Harry's old house. While looking at the house, Harry and Hermione are beckoned by Bathilda Bagshot into her home...where she transforms into Nagini."
"As Snape dies, he gives his memories to Harry that prove Snape's loyalty to Dumbledore, motivated by his lifelong love for Harry's mother Lily..."
First section of bold text could be misleading. Harry's old house would be the then-compromised #12 Grimmauld Place. It should perhaps be clarified as referring to his parents' old house.
Second bold section is errored. It is not a transformation; Nagini quite plainly is said to emerge from the neck of the hollowed corpse of Bathilda.
In the third text section, detailing Snape's memories, the doe Patronus might be mentioned as having belonged to Lily Potter (later Snape, due to his longing for her). (being a part of the Plot section, it seems an important point to make)
GaiusRoth (talk) 04:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor observations...