Talk:Harry Potter Fan Zone

2010 revision

This article had been lacking sources and hadn't been substantially edited since 2008, and didn't meet WP:NPOV standards. I thus decided to modify it, removing bias and most unsourced statements. I welcome any further sourced improvement, possibly from someone with a larger knowledge of the article subject than mine. -- Angelikfire (talk) 17:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

2011 revisions and attempts to improve article quality as requested

As per the "2010 revision" suggestion, I've attempted to modify the article to improve both the quality and sourcing. Additionally, as per the review for deletion conducted in May/June 2008, I've included a number of references to reinforce the site's notability and address some of the concerns regarding sourcing raised in that discussion.

There seems to be some issue with someone involved with the fan site (I am the webmaster) editing the article, as edits I made were quickly reverted, my account instantly banned, and a tag slapped on the article. The review for deletion suggested that someone knowledgeable on the subject make an appropriate rewrite, and the above user also suggested someone with "a larger knowledge of the article subject than mine" check over the article.

That is what I have done.

My edits were designed to include much needed sources (as requested), make the article a little more concise, remove some conjecture (removing bias and ensuring neutrality, certainly not promoting otherwise!) and include notable website activity since the last major rewrite (some five years ago). This is, I believe, totally valid. Why not allow someone who knows the subject through and through to make appropriate changes?

This can only improve the article's adherence to Wikipedia's standards. I of course would love the input and edits of others involved in the Harry Potter community, but since that hasn't happened in some time, I do believe my additions (in response to the review for deletion) are totally valid.

Now, since posting the above on the talk page, both this discussion and my edits to the article have once again been removed and my account banned. The tag slapped on the article reads, "Please discuss further on the talk page". So I do. And then that post is removed for vandalism and I'm banned once again. I am an avid supporter of Wikipedia, and my goal here is to only improve the quality of this article and ensure it meets Wikipedia's standards (as was encouraged in the review for deletion). This is absolutely ridiculous. Harry Potter Fan Zone is an unofficial fan site run by Harry Potter fans, not an organisation or business, and while I'm certainly involved with the site, my edits (as were requested in the review for deletion discussion!) have improved the quality tenfold.

I'm not vandalising the article, as suggested. I'm not trying to self-promote (in fact, I removed a lot of puffy nonsense from the curent revision), as suggested. I'm not trying to manipulate neutrality, as suggested. I'm trying to improve the quality of a Wikipedia article as per the consensus of its deletion review.

I've edited the article to what I believe is an acceptable standard. Feel free to change it however you see fit, but please at least read this justification before banning, removing my edits, and removing my contributions to the talk page on the grounds of "vandalism".

Andy

--124.171.111.192 (talk) 03:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Secondary source for Canberra Times

I've dug up a secondary source for the Canberra Times article on the Times' website itself which would be more suitable than linking to the fan site for a transcript. http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/web-hit-harry-potter-and-the-canberra-kid/410596.aspx.

--ProspektsMarch14 (talk) 01:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense by metonymy

The article keeps claiming that the website did this and visited that, all of which is bollocks. If the webmaster did so, then say so; if somebody else representing the website did so, then say so. Just let us know (with sources) who did what! --Orange Mike | Talk 01:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I (Andy, the webmaster) covered the premiere events, visits to the studio and published the open letter but of course didn't add my name to these statements for fear of repeated blatant self-promotion. There are coverage sources on the website that I can provide (articles, photos etc.) but I know linking to the actual website itself is discouraged. The Canberra Times article does mention two of these events which may be a better source. I do think it is acceptable to state "Harry Potter Fan Zone covered XYZ", as surely it would be acceptable to say "Entertainment Tonight covered the red carpet arrivals" or "The Today Show visted the set of Film XYZ", but agree that this is possibly contentious. --ProspektsMarch14 (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Harry Potter Fan Zone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/web-hit-harry-potter-and-the-canberra-kid/410596.aspx
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070710/harry_potter_trivia_070709/20070710/CTV.ca
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070514034127/http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/fansite_view.cfm?id=19 to http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/fansite_view.cfm?id=19

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)