User talk:Natkabrown

Aloha

Hello! Chmoki WilliamH (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aloha 2

Gordo (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Peer review of Pope John Paul II

Hi NatBrown, I thought you might be interested in participating in this peer review. Kind Regards -- Marek.69 talk 01:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any comments on the article? -- Marek.69 talk 10:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Jimbo's talk page

Hi. I just skimmed that thread, and am, as usual, appalled at the ignorant and puerile responses to your reasonable concerns. User JN466 has a fair grasp of the ongoing movement to improve the reader experience of offensive content. If you'd like to get an overview, I'm sure he'd be able to point you to the relevant locations where this is being discussed. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

moved from User talk:Natbrown--Jac16888 Talk 21:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Natka, thanks for raising the topic. I've dropped you a post to the Facebook page. Could I suggest that you make your Facebook group public? Right now people have to join Facebook before they can see the page. (I'm no Facebook expert, but there should be a setting where you can change this.) Best, --JN466 00:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't make this group public because I don't feel right to discuss these matters in front of minors. This group is over 18 :( I am not an expert on the matter. I have started it because I was personally hurt by the images and I don't want my granddaughter to see those images while she is still a child. I don't know about Germany, they might have different attitude about it, but I will not be able to cope with it. What I am saying is that if Wikipedia allows such images then I am afraid they are not a charity in UK and USA. The charity commissions in those countries have to sort it out, not me.

Appeals to Jimbo

Since you've learned to contact Jimbo from Yahoo! Answers, I have to inform you that (as per Wikipedia:Appeals to Jimbo) you can get some fair amount of responses from there because it is watched by over 1000 users, but not necessarily from Jimbo himself. In fact every user on Wikipedia is free to respond to the message in their own talk page unless it is about making controversial editing or engaging in wp:edit war. Otherwise leaving rousing complaint on Jimbo's talk page does not make your issue more prominent than others. I would recommend you to post your further inquiries to wp:Village pump. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 09:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have posted it there Natkabrown (talk) 11:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The exact thread is here. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

This is Wikilove, our way to tell you that you shouldn't feel threatened by other editors comments on your behaviour. See, there is also beautiful content here.

Diego (talk) 13:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be scared by some people's reaction to your comment at the Village pump. This is common around here behind the scenes, but all editors are mandated to remain civil, to be extremely nice to newcomers and to build a healthy community. If you ever feel threatened by anybody, you can remember them of these policies, simply ignore them or even report personal attacks to the authority (though this is a last resort). Diego (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After all the above is said, you should be aware that you will be held to the same standars of behavior. You will have to remain calm at all moments (not that you haven't been until now, just to warn you when conversation gets heated). Remember that almost everybody here is a volunteer, people come from all backgrounds and can express themselves freely. You will be also expected to have at least a cursory understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so be prepared to read a lot (you may begin here).

Also your calls to notify irs.gov and UK's charity commision, while legitimate, have been seen by some people as a threat an a sort of blackmail (those calls should be directly addresed to the Wikipedia Foundation, not posted to a random page). That's why they called it an attempt at chilling speech and a perceived legal threat. By our policy, those threats are usually handled by Wikipedia professional legal team, and you could be forbidden to continue editing until it is solved. If you want to pursue that avenue you need to be aware of that possibility; you also will be expected to defend your position in a rational way, and some people will express very strong opinions against it.

Be aware that your concern has already been extensively debated at Wikipedia and the current consensus is that those contents are admissible by our standards (see here and here to understand the current stance in that respect). Because of that, it's extremely unlikely that your proposal will change the website behaviour. I have offered an alternate avenue you could take to solve your concern, which is that schools and parents should be made aware that this site is not "family approved" in the usual meaning. If you want to explore this alternate approach, I'll be glad to help you to put the wheels in motion and see what happens. This approach is reasonably more likely to gain support, although the outcome is not guaranteed. Just drop me a line here or at my talk page. Diego (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Diego, Thank you so much for your kind words and the kitten :) I just want not to be scared when my granddaughter goes on Wikipedia. I don't want her to be confronted with the pictures. I know that if I am alive and not very ill I will be able to protect her up to a point. But I will not be here forever.
I have read somewhere in the Indian scriptures that "there will be evil in this world while people love their own children more than other people's children". I feel guilty of loving her so much, so I am doing it not only for her, but for the other children as well.
I love Wikipedia and I love Wikipedians, so I am sorry as well to hurt people who have made so much for the benefit of this world. Natkabrown (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Calls to notify irs.gov and UK's charity commision are not a legal threat. I just think that they know better then me what is right and what is not. I am not about to start any legal proceedings. Natkabrown (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a legal threat, it's true, but it has a chilling effect nonetheless.

You can, of course, write letters to the IRS or to the UK's charity commissions and we, as Wikipedians, cannot stop you – or even know about it. However, to basically say "either you do as I say or I will attempt to have their charitable status removed" is different, because that is a threat aimed at getting Wikipedia to accede to your requests, which does undermine one of Wikipedia's pillars – namely the one mandating that Wikipedia works by consensus. This behaviour is considered disruptive and might lead to sanctions. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, Nat, for taking a stand. Wikipedia is in many ways a great resource, but it also has some serious flaws, not least the official lack of "censorship", for which read "standards". There is material on here which would make many people blanche and which is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia, especially one accessible to everyone. But as Diego points out, if you challenge some of this stuff, you will get flak from some quarters! Just check out my little comment on the village pump on LGBT articles! --Bermicourt (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but I couldn't find your edit :( I am a bit lost here :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natkabrown (talk • contribs) 20:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's here. You will see how aggressive and rude some people get when you dare to question the status quo. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't question it. I want to see Wikipedia improve in the right way. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, it's long :) There so many intelligent people on Wikipedia :) I don't know a thing about policies or politics. The only thing I know is that the videos of the mastrubation is offencive for women. It hurts :(
When I heard for a first time about Penis envy - I was about 12-14 then - I thought: What a rubbish! Since early childhood I was happy being a girl. I wasn't happy about being a human at all, since I could see how much wrong humanity does, but I was happy being a girl. I am happy being a woman now, but I become very unhappy woman when men show me the sign of their masculinity. Why do they do it? Why I become upset? I don't know. It's a mystery for me. Women are the mystery for men and they are even mystery for themselves. So let’s agree on that and keep a bit of mystery between us and let's not hurt each other. Natkabrown (talk) 07:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good for you. And such images are not just offensive to women, but are not wanted by many men either. We don't need this stuff. The limited "educational" value is IMHO outweighed by the offence it may cause to many people and the inappropriateness of it being freely seen by young children. It's time Wikipedia adopted a more mature and sensitive approach. I'm sure it would help if more women participated! --Bermicourt (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A puppy for you

The obligatory puppy for wikimeet attendance
Come along to the Wikimedia meetup in London and you shall get a puppy. Spread the word. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Name and blackmail

As far as I can tell you have never edited as Natbrown (talk · contribs). All the edits credited to that user name were actually done as Natkabrown and re-attributed when you requested a change of name. Since you continue to edit as Natkabrown and since multiple accounts are very much deprecated, I have blocked Natbrown and moved your user page and this page to here, user talk:Natkabrown.

Re webcam blackmail: you should not be so modest about your English - I saw nothing to object to as lapses of English. But I would criticise it heavily for its unencyclopedic style: you must have used "you" a dozen times. It has survived 24 hours so it is probably safe from the attention of those baying wolves the new page patrollers and the speedy deletion admins (like me) who follow closely on their heels. But you left it as what we call an "orphan" - virtually no incoming links. I have now, at a stroke, caused more than an hundred articles to link to it. We will see if that generates any more attention. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WMUK's Lua on Wikimedia event

Hi, this is just a reminder that you have previously signed up for the Lua on Wikimedia event taking place at Wikimedia UK office this Sunday. The plan is to start at 10am, but I should be around to let you in from 9-ish. See you then! -- Katie Chan (WMUK) (talk) 10:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Katie, I'll see you soon ;)

Historical map

Re commons:file:map of Ukraine borders 1654 - 2014.jpg: you claim that you made it for your husband but Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs) thinks it is a copyvio. In the unlikely event that you can convince Magog that it is not a copyvio, rather than trying repeatedly to force it into the article the next step would be to propose at talk:Ukraine that it should be included. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you so much! I am remaking the map using Wikipedia images only now! [[Natkabrown|Natasha Brown]] 13:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natkabrown (talk • contribs)

Please learn how to do a proper signature. Sorry, got interrupted by a man from Minehead (that is my gender-specific variation on person from Porlock). I hope you noted the summaries on this edit and this one. Any new map that you make will probably be subject to the same criticism. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am hopeless with the wiki script! I have uploaded a new map with:
Description: Simplified historical map of Ukrainian borders (1654 - 2014). Word "gift" is used for "conquests" or "reconquests" are too long for the simple map.
Date: 7 March 2014, 14:56:13
Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Ukraine_political_simple_blank.svg - Sven Teschke, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-B0628-0015-035,_Nikita_S._Chruschtschow.jpg - Junge, Heinz, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lesser_CoA_of_the_empire_of_Russia.svg - Katepanomegas and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:JStalin_Secretary_general_CCCP_1942_flipped.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lenin_CL.jpg
Author: Sven Teschke, Junge Heinz, Katepanomegas, derivative work by: Natkabrown

I very much hope that the copyright for the image will be OK now! I've just remade some Commons images with Photoshop for which I pay every month! I gave the credits to everyone I could. It might be a case that I am doing something wrong, but I will very much hope that others will correct me!

3RR warning

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Ukraine shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I didn't know a thing about the "wars"! I'll follow your advice! I've commented here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ukraine#Simplified_historical_map_of_Ukraine

Your recent edits

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Signature settings

In reply to this remarks, I think it's probably because of an error in your signature settings. Go to "Preferences" > "User profile" and scroll down to "Signature". If you want a simple signature just put a nickname in like "Natkabrown" (without any wikicode) and make sure you untick "Treat the above as wiki markup.". If you can't fix the problem, I can fix it manually at tomorrow's meetup for you. CT Cooper · talk 13:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I think that it fixed it! :) Natasha Brown 15:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personal information

Information icon Wikipedia policy is to "comment on content, not on the contributor." (See Wikipedia:No personal attacks.) Please do not post personal information in discussions about edits to Wikipedia. It is not relevant, and we are not allowed to comment on it.

If you read Wikipedia:Harassment, you will see that it is also against the rules to post speculations about other users identities.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. "comment on content, not on the contributor" - I answered directly to the direct comment by Toddy1 to me:‎ 7 March 2014 Toddy1 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (232,480 bytes) (-127)‎ . . (Undid revision 598580909 by Natkabrown (talk) hate-cartoons expressing your non-notable POV not wanted on WIkipedia) - I didn't know nor about the person who's made the comment nor about the Wikipedia policy then. I apologized then and I apologize one more time now. I should read more about the policies and try my best to follow them.
  2. "against the rules to post speculations about other users identities" - I don't know a thing about the identities of editors except of the things they tell about themselves on their profile. I never disclose any anonymity of any editor of Wikipedia. I respect the right of editors to anonymity though I chose to disclose my identity. I am ashamed to tell that I even can't remember nor names nor usernames of the majority of the people whom I know for a long time!
Natasha Brown 22:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
I, CT Cooper, award Natasha this barnstar for remaining cool and diplomatic while under fire for creating a controversial map of Ukraine. I hope she continues the good work. CT Cooper · talk 22:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am cool!!! Natasha Brown 00:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

English South Coast Meetup

Hi Natasha, you are hereby invited to the South Coast Meetup.

Kind Regards -- Marek.69 talk 03:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]