Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ncmvocalist (talk | contribs) at 04:59, 26 October 2008 (→Proposal). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Unless you request otherwise, I will do my best to reply to your message both here (for continuity of discussion) and on your talk page (for your ease).

I'm always happy to see your name on my watchlist

After participating in WP for over a year now, especially in the various disambiguation projects, I just wanted to say that I'm always glad to see your name pop up in any discussion. You are always courteous and your insights are always on point. I am of the opinion that people's true character is evident in their behavior, especially over time, and I feel that your contributions here are evidence of your high character as a human being. Thanks.

P.S. If I were any good at cute little flowers and pictures, I'd give you one! SlackerMom (talk) 13:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

*Much blushing* That is such a nice thing for you to say, SlackerMom - thank you so much for the truly lovely compliments! You've set me smiling for a while with that; thank you.

Along those same lines, especially with many of the recent discussions, I am similarly glad to see your well-thought-out thoughts on disambiguation. There can be some pretty crazy ideas out there, and from what I've seen (including the thread just above this one on your talk page, which impressed me with your reasonable and rational response), you help keep things stable. It certainly is a pleasure to edit with you. And since you mentioned, it I couldn't resist something pretty and cheerful. :) -- Natalya 15:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, mutual admiration is so pleasant, is it not? Here's to a happy day! (And thanks for the butterfly!) SlackerMom (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed! It's always most enjoyable to work with editors who you respect. -- Natalya 16:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

hans krebs

hello! thanks for the kind message, but i just don't agree with the premise. hk-the-general is not the primary subject, he just happens to be the first with a wikipaedia article to occupy the namespace. inasmuch as hk is a fairly common name, the hk namespace should serve as the dab page with all other hks listed with qualifiers per mos:dab#People. it was my intention to move the article on the general, but i couldn't decide whether "hans krebs (general)" was actually the best choice. hope this is helpful...cheers! --emerson7 01:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay! I understand your reasoning now - thank you for explaining! "Hans Krebs (general)" seems fine - I'll go ahead and take care of the move, and of moving the disambiguation page to "Hans Krebs", since there is no primary topic. I'm glad to figure this out. -- Natalya 02:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

DB and your invasion of one of my sandboxes

Thank you for pointing me towards this; I feel that this suggested wording is most suitable to my case (or it will be when you get round to actually protecting the article) "It is impossible to attempt to reach consensus on the right version while the wrong version is protected. The very credibility of Misplaced Pages is at stake, if the newspapers learn that Misplaced Pages has published the wrong version, and the page must therefore be corrected immediately, if not sooner." I want you to know that I am deadly serious about this and will be taking it to the very top although I suspect you are a member of a central cabal so I know I will not win; you are all against me! As for invading my sandbox to make helpful changes that made links actually work, WELL!! I can only say, mustering my most ironic voice, Thank you. :) Abtract (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Rouge admins?! Where?! I mean, uh...

:D

Do you know, I never actually noticed that it was spelled "rouge" and not "rogue" until just now.

I'm glad you enjoyed it - I always found it funny, and also a well-needed bit of humor when things get heated. As for the sandbox intrusion, it looks like you've got something good going there (I posted a bit at the Wikiproject Disambig thread about it). It looks like someone's tried to do something similar with Fraternity right now, but it also looks like there's a bit of a brouhaha going on, so I'm going to let things cool down and settle a bit before trying to sort things out. My first concern is that the page is currently tagged as a disambiguation page... but I don't think it really is one. But, will wait for things to get figure out before going in and making other changes.

Anyways, thanks for the laugh with your post, and for your discussion. -- Natalya 00:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Fraternity

I tried to clean up "fraternity" and other articles, and all I've gotten for it is a public accusation against my character. The people who feel entitled to sit on these pages appear to want things their way, and I can't see wasting the time dealing with it. The world is a big place and I have other things to do. But good luck on your effortsP22575R15 (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you've run into some trouble in trying to clean up the page Fraternity. Something that may help in the future, however; if you know that there is some disagreement about a page, it's always better to discuss any changes that you want to make rather than going ahead and making them anyway, as that can often turn into an edit war, and may everyone unhappy.

You've given my cause for concern, however. This first edit to my talk page, followed by your correction here, makes me think that you run both accounts - if that is the case, please be aware the sock puppetry is strictly forbidden. While there are legitimate uses for alternate accounts, if you use an alternate account to circumvent any Misplaced Pages policy, you will likely be blocked from editing. This is taken very seriously. I will assume that you meant things for the best, but if you do indeed operate an alternate account, I would strongly advise you to only use it for legitimate reasons. -- Natalya 00:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was convenient to have more than one account solely for a watchlist.Observatio (talk) 01:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#What's the best way to undo a large number of good faith page moves that had no consenus?P22575R15 (talk) 03:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

National Youth Orchestra

Thank you Natalya for answering my query, and for creating the disambiguity page. (National Youth Orchestra) I knew how to do it, but not if I had the right to do it. Just one more question - there are some National Youth Orchestras that don't actually have those words in their title. Would it be OK to include them on the disambiguity page? I'm thinking of orchestras like the Australian Youth Orchestra and the Simon_Bolivar_Youth_Orchestra of Venezuela. I'm fairly new to editing! Thanks. Jongleur100 (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages should include links to articles whose titles can be legitimately confused with the term being disambiguated (see Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation). At first, I'm hesitant to say that the other youth orchestras should be included, just because they have very different names. If many people referred to those orchestras as "National Youth Orchestra" in their respective countries, however, then perhaps they would be valid to include on the page. You might be able to make an article like a "List of National Youth Orchestras", however. I'm not initmately familiar for criteria of things to be on lists, but if you take a look at Misplaced Pages:Lists, there should be some information there. -- Natalya 16:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Your eagle eye is needed pls

I wonder if you would mind looking at this edit and keeping a watchful eye on the page and its talk page. Thanks. Abtract (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I certainly will, and am glad to see already your attempts to diffuse the otherwise rather tense situation. -- Natalya 22:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Noticing that User:Collectonian made a rv to that page I had a quick look at her user page and talk page to see how she was going. To my disquiet I discovered she is giving me a somewhat unflattering mention on the former, whilst on the later she calls User:Ncmvocalist a "nut", suggests that another editor needs a "smack down" and further disparages me. I just wonder if she might need a guiding hand before she becomes a danger to herself? Abtract (talk) 14:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to run and complain, at least do so honestly. I didn't call Ncmvocalist anything at all. As for disparaging you, you are a stalker. You admitted it. Just because you got away with it doesn't make it any less so. And the fact that you still look at my userpage and take little notes about it just shows you are still silently stalking me. I won't even ask about the whole "danger to herself" BS. And is your calling Sesshomaru a fool somehow good and wholesome? -- ] (] · ]) 01:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

*Sigh* I think everyone has things that they could improve upon... in general, there is a great lack of civility going on between all parties here. Collectonian, your point about Abtract's the keeping track of disparaging edits elucidates the point I want to make - I highly suggestion that everyone try to concentrate on the encyclopedia more than the contributors. That's what we're here for. I have a feeling that if these behaviours continue, there will only be greater consequenses. -- Natalya 01:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

thankspam

Thanks to everyone who participated in my RfA, regardless of their !vote. I have withdrawn the nomination as a failure at 19 supports, 45 opposes, and 9 neutral statements. As has been written and sung, you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you get what you need — and what I need is to go back to working on our shared project. Not everyone has to be an admin; there is a role for each of us. After reflection, I feel I don't have the temperament to secure community consensus as an admin at any point, and I will not be applying again in the future — and hey, that's all right, 'cause I stay true to the philosophy that adminship is no big deal: I tried, I failed, and now I'll return to doing what I've always done. I have an extremely strong belief in the consensus process, and the consensus was clear. I will be devoting my energies to volunteering at MedCab and working up a complete series of articles on the short stories of Ernest Hemingway, among lord knows what else. Thanks again to everyone who spared the time to weigh in on this one. It was made in better faith than it probably seemed. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 14:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It's probably true - my attitude is not necessarily a perfect fit for admin work. I'm not sure what kind of admin I would have made, really; it's hard to tell. Either way, look forward to working with you and everyone on WP in the future. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 14:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Bkonrad

I don't know what the deal is with this user. (S)he keeps making the same point edit to DB in spite of lack of consensus. Can you undo it and fully protect the page? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

True, but you do keep changing it back... so it seems that both of you are unfortunately in the wrong. There's nothing wrong with taking the higher road and leaving the page even not the way that you want it for a little while, so that consensus has been reached, leading to fewer disputes and arguments. I have protected the page for now in the form it was when I got to it - see Talk:DB#Edit_warrning_and_temporary_page_protection for my rational and general sadness. Also, just to make sure you are aware, you were one revert away from breaking 3RR (which is not even an entitlement anyway). -- Natalya 00:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks!

Thank you... ...for participating in my RfA, which closed with 119 in support, 4 neutral and 5 opposes. I'm honestly overwhelmed at the level of support that I've received from the community, and will do my best to maintain the trust placed in me. I 'm also thankful to those who opposed or expressed a neutral position, for providing clear rationales and superb feedback for me to build on. I've set up a space for you to provide any further feedback or thoughts, should you feel inclined to. However you voted, thanks for taking the time out to contribute to the process, it's much appreciated. Kind regards, Gazimoff 21:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Wow, that's very kind of you, thank you very much! :) I'm pleased to be of assistance wherever I can be. Hopefully I don't muck things up too much (well, not all the time anyway. :D). Thanks again, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You are most welcome! And we all muck things up time and again - at least it gives us an opportunity to laugh at ourselves! The first time I updated DYK, I managed to fail to do about half the things you're supposed to do when you do the update... but, so it goes! The future can only be better, then. -- Natalya 01:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Abtract/User:Sesshomaru

He has again broken the contract, see these edits. Tried to let it slide the first time, but he insists on partially reverting me. What now? Please reply below, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sess, apologies if you feel either of these was a "partial revert" but I assure you they were not. Neither were they "disagreements with your edits". In both cases I was building on your work and further improving the dab page. In the first edit, you had just created a redirect for Wow! to Interjection which then clearly became the primary topic ... as part of a more general cleanup, I "promoted" that entry to its proper place (building on your edit). Subsequently, you changed your mind about the redirect and redirected Wow! back to Wow (I asked why on the talk page but I can't understand your reply, sorry) so realising that you had simply missed the fact that it had now become nothing more than a dictionary definition, I eliminated the line - bearing in mind that this was not a line you had put in but just one that you had played with. I hope this helps. Abtract (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh Sess, I really wish you hadn't done that which was an out and out revert just to be bloody minded, with no regard for what I was trying to achieve or what is required by mos:dab. I am doing my best, please do likewise. Abtract (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yet another revert and no progress on Sess removing the warning he placed (against our agreement) on my talk page. I am concentrating on content but Sess is making life difficult and seems to have abandoned the agreement. Abtract (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You don't make any sense Abtract. You didn't agree with me here, so I made this edit according to the compromise reached on the talk page. What's wrong now? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

this revert was made in most aggravating circumstances since Sess knows that I fought long and hard about the capitalisation of hp which his recent edit and now his revert altered, against the compromise consensus reached in May ... he knows all this because he took part in the debate. Also I see there is no progress on Sess removing the warning he placed (against our agreement) on my talk page. I am concentrating on content but Sess is making life difficult and seems to have abandoned the agreement. Abtract (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this revert was actually made because the redirect target has changed to Hewlett-Packard Company. That's why I did that modification. Now I find that you've turned the tables against me. If anything, you reverted me first, and your edit summary isn't entirely true and you know it. You weren't so much against the edit on the talk page, especially since I gave good reason. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Really, gentlemen, I don't know what to say. You have so fried my brain with all of your disagreements that I can't even think straight about it anymore. I'm very close to asking... actually, I don't even know what to ask. Another administrator to look over the continued problems that you two seem to have, but I don't think that would bode well for either of you. It seems difficult to ask for mediation, since as soon as one problem gets solved, the two of you manage to find something else to disagree about. The almost agreement that was come to at Talk:Wow made me so happy - just seeing that it was possible for the two of you to have a productive discussion and not keep reverting each other. I'm sure that both of you could be blocked by the terms of your agreement, but I just don't know. I'm tired. It's hard to do that to me. -- Natalya 00:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

OK apologies to you Natalya, I will not bring anymore violations to your attention. Abtract (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It'd make me much happier if there were no violations. I know that's a lot to ask, but one can wish, eh?  :) I still want to help things resolve between the two of you, and I'd much rather have you guys talk out disputes here or on an article talk page than just revert each other, so please, if it's between reverting each other or discussing things here, please come and discuss. I think I just need a little bit of a breather to recollect myself. Hopefully JHunterJ will be back sometime soon, and he can give a hand also. It's probably too much to ask for you guys to try and avoid articles that each other is working, because you both do a lot of disambiguating, but if you're able, perhaps focus on something else that you enjoy editing, and won't run into each other at? Just for a bit. -- Natalya 01:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I know I said I wouldn't but he has now taken to reverting me on your talk page before your very eyes ... please do something. Abtract (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Didn't know that was you. I have undone the edit, and will change Natalya's comment on my talk page to reflect the header. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks ... now change back HP (disambiguation) to what it should be and we will all be happy. You must know how much effort I put into getting the capitalisation of hp correct because you were part of the debate and you must know that your recent edit goes against the consensus that was reached at the time (this is nothing to do with the re-naming of HP). Change it back please. Abtract (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You can't even make up your mind can you? First we reach an agreement, then you go back on your word. No, I see nothing with that edit we initially compromised. And Abtract, consensus isn't immutable. How many times must I tell you that? Really, do something constructive for both our sakes. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yet again you leave me speechless. Abtract (talk) 17:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Bkonrad seems to have given a good explanation at Talk:HP_(disambiguation)#Primary_topics. -- Natalya 19:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You have a problem?

What is there to explain? I accidently posted without paying attention to how I was logged in, and then corrected the mistake. This is the opposite of sock puppetry. Perhaps you can explain how, at all, this is a case of me trying to deceive people that I am multiple persons? Maybe you should relax. And go read the policy on sock puppetry. It is having multiple accounts AND using them to create the false impression of many people in support of the same idea. And if you have nothing to do but track everyone else's posts, perhaps you should get a hobby. —Preceding unsigned comment added by P22575R15 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

And, tell you what. Why don't you go report this finding of yours anywhere you want. You can find out what sockpuppetry is all on your own, and leave me out of it. And stop posting on my talk page; I don't appreciate the attention.P22575R15 (talk) 02:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that this had distressed you. I am very glad that you are taking account for your edits, because it shows that you're not trying to use multiple accounts to show extra support for issues. I just want to make sure that you're aware of what you can and cannot do with multiple accounts - I'm glad that you do know this.

Also, to quell your fears, I'm not tracking everyone (or anyone's) posts - when anyone posts on talk pages that I watch, however, it's something that I'm going to see.

Again, sorry to bother you, and I hope you don't take too much offense at this last post on your talk page. -- Natalya 11:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

no problem, matter forgotten. P22575R15 (talk) 14:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Talk:Parapsychology/Archive 8

Hi, can you delete "Talk:Parapsychology/Archive 8", which is an exact duplicate of "Talk:Parapsychology/Archive 9" so that I can move "Talk:Parapsychology/archive8" to "Talk:Parapsychology/Archive 8" in order to ensure consistency with other archive page names and enable interlinking archive banners. Thanks. --Phenylalanine (talk) 12:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

All set! -- Natalya 13:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Cheers! --Phenylalanine (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Shoop

I don't quite know the issue on formatting citations on name pages. Can you look at it? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It's best to put any citations in the relevant articles; we don't need/want them on the disambiguation pages (as Abtract mentioned in his edit removing the citation). -- Natalya 19:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Though I don't think the page needs two templates. Which should be taken off? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. I just left the {{disambig}} tag on - since it is a disambiguation page, and doesn't just contain names, I believe that is the most appropriate tag. -- Natalya 10:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You may like to look here before deciding. Abtract (talk) 12:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like it already has been added to Category:American surnames. Was there something else I should have caught from that? -- Natalya 23:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No that's fine thanks. Abtract (talk) 06:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that's all for now. Thanks Natalya. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Peter Wishart

Thanks for clarifying the policy. In terms of notability it is hard to say. I knew about the composer and not the politician, but I am a professional classical musician so my knowledge set is different than the average reader. I would think that the MP is probably better known in England now, simply because he is alive and in current press. But for people outside England, I would assume the composer would be more known. I guess it all depends on who is doing the searching.Nrswanson (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. It could perhaps be brought up at Talk:Peter Wishart, to see if those there (in a hopefully unbiased fashion) have reason to believe he is more notable than the composer by the same name. -- Natalya 03:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Kane’s Polynia

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Kane’s Polynia, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://web.mac.com/luchardy/Greenland_2007/Blog/Entries/2007/7/25_Naturalist_Report!!.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 01:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The Black Panther

I'm thinking about re-targeting this to Black Panther (disambiguation) because I fail to see how/why a British murderer is a primary topic. Thoughts? Inclusively, what should The black panther redirect to? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It may be because "the black panther" is slightly different than "black panther"; none of the other entries at Black Panther (disambiguation) seem to be called "The Black Panther". I don't think it's objectionable to keep is as a primary topic for The Black Panther. If you're still not sure, though, it might not be a bad idea to ask at Talk:Donald Neilson.

Once you decide if you want to keep The Black Panther as a redirect to Donald Neilson or have it go to the disambiguation page, I'd imagine that The black panther should follow suit with whatever is decided. -- Natalya 11:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe if I just say in my edit summary that the superhero is also known as "The Black Panther", changing the redirect wouldn't be a bad idea. And do you agree that the disambiguation page needs cleaning? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see your point. Since the superhero can also go by "The Black Panther", then it probably does make sense to change it. I imagine saying so in your edit summary should be sufficient.

The disambiguation page probably could use some cleaning, but it's not horrendous, at least. -- Natalya 13:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello from Cuba

Hello Natalya,

I'm writing you from Cuba,I love Country music and I would like to get in touch you to talk about this wonderful music.

If you have a chance,please write me to email address commented out to avoid spam

I hope to see you soon, Manolo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.220.215.13 (talk) 00:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, I'm not a huge country music fan. If you want to contribute to articles about country music here on Misplaced Pages, you might check out Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Country Music. -- Natalya 02:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Abtract

I'm sorry to have to bother you, but JHunterJ has made it clear that he will not do anything to stop Abtract's behavior, and even seems to condone it. Despite his repeated warnings and his being told to stop harassing other editors, especially me, Abtract is continuing to do so. He left a snarky "goodbye" on my talk pages a few days ago when he made his big show of leaving (obviously false), and has continued to stalking me, quickly filing a falsifed 3RR report against me for a minor disagreement at InuYasha caused by someone changing an industry term to a less common one, in which he makes a fake claim of four reverts when there were only 3.. As he has never edited that article, the only way he would even know about this is if he was continuing his stalking for the purposes of finding ways to continue to harass me. Is there really nothing Misplaced Pages will do about this person's continued horrible behavior? In real life, he'd be behind bars! Instead, he is continued to allowed to continue acting like this, despite eight blocks. His indef block was reverted upon his making an agreement, which he is now breaking again because JHunterJ allowed him to back out of it, despite it being a condition of the indef block being lifted. Can you do anything to help here? Is yet another AN/I in order, or will it just result in his again being giving a virtual slap on the hand and allowed to continue acting in such an disturbing fashion? Note: I'll also be asking a similar question of LessHeard vanU, who originally indef blocked Abtract.-- ] (] · ]) 08:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Some corrections to Collectonian's claims:

1. Sesshomaru asked that the agreement be ended, not Abtract.
2. I made it clear that I would not "ride herd" on Abtract, but would intervene when something actually happened.
3. The "snarky" goodbye is neither harassment nor incivil.
4. The 3RR report appears valid; Abtract included diff links of your 4 reverts within a 24-hour period.

Another AN/I is unlikely to get the result Collectonian wants, given their behavior. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

JHunterJ, I appreciate your clarification on some point, especially the one about the agreement. I do remember seeing Sesshomaru's discussion of wanting to get out of the agreement; for all we know, Abtract is still playing by the agreement. Even if not, it was not his doing that it was dissolved.

For the 3RR report, I don't particularly feel confident that I could speculate how he knew about it. Could he have the page on his watchlist? Yes. Could he still be following your edits? Yes. Is it possible for me to know? Not as far as I'm aware. I will say that I'm not 100% sure if one of those edits counts as removing vandalism or not, but that is for discussion at the 3RR report, which seems to be going on. It seems that people are being pretty rational about things there.

As for the goodbyes (albeit a lesser issue), I'm inclined to take them on good faith. His message to you does imply that the two of you still disagree on things, but to me it seemed like an attempt at being friendly, similar to the message he left for Sesshomaru.

I will attempt to look at all these issues with as much a neutral point of view as possible, but having dealt with previous issues before, I'm not sure if I'm giving you the outside view that you'd like. If you feel that way, you're welcome to take up an WP:AN/I report, but from my perspective, and with some good faith, I don't currently see the need for one. -- Natalya 11:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The goodbye is one of his many subtle insults, a last word that he feels he was right over an old issue, one he continued to link about on his user page until he blanked it, and which he continued to harp on in every AN/I report and incident discussion. I appreciate you working to look at it from a NPOV view. LessHeard vanU has also asked Ncmvocalist to look at things, as someone who has also been involved in this issue before. I can only hope that Misplaced Pages will finally do something about this sort of inappropriate behavior.-- ] (] · ]) 15:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the report isn't valid. The second "revert" was a vandal revert, which is not anything that gets included in a 3RR. -- ] (] · ]) 15:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Not that diff, but the report was valid as editwarring which was why Stifle's initial reaction was to protect the page. In any case, my findings/recommendations are at LHVU's talkpage. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your well-considered thoughts, Ncmvocalist; I've left a short response there. -- Natalya 17:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Page

Hi, I am new to Misplaced Pages, and may have accidentally blanked my page. I don't want my pages --137.195.60.45 (talk) 08:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)deleted and am communicating with the Wiki-admin at the moment to get some help. Can you get my pages back please. Thanks.--Nitech2008 (talk) 09:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify which page you are trying to get back? -- Natalya 11:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Pages

Hi, Rifleman82 has restored the article. Thanks.--Nitech2008 (talk) 12:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Thanks ...

No problem. The issue of what autoconfirmed accounts can do seems to confuse people a bit, possibly because what they actually can do and what you need to do to be one has changed a bit since it was first implemented. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 03:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Adaptive Audio article

Hi Natalya,

I left a comment today on the Adaptive Audio talk page referring to some recent edits and deletions. I was responding to comments from Calltech and others. Can you tell me if I am on the right path to resolving these issues?

D3innovation (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Asking the opinions of others is a great way to deal with these issues, and I commend you for wanting to improve the article to Misplaced Pages's standards. I do think Calltech does bring up some good points, and hopefully with clarification, the article can be improved. Your example of Microsoft Outlook gives me a good example: Microsoft Outlook is an article about a specific program, while E-mail client is an article about a type of application (or which Microsoft Outlook) is one. In Adaptive audio, are you attempting to write a general or more specific type of article? Calltech's concerns seemed to be that the article was being both general and specific; if specific, the reason for discussing only Interactive Digital's "Adaptive Audio" technology would need to follow Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines. If you were being more general, and discussing a wide range of technology termed "Adaptive Audio", then you should be sure to edit in a neutral light, not giving Interactive Digital's (or anyones) technology precidence. -- Natalya 19:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Adaptive Audio article

Hi Natalya and thanks for responding.

I want to write a specific article for Adaptive Audio - the product, just like Microsoft Outlook, with references to the official web site, like velcro. I have read the notability guidelines and believe I have enough independent references in magazine articles etc to meet these standards. Should I just go ahead and add these and make the article more Adaptive Audio product specific, without sounding sales oriented? I can keep the tone neutral - I just wanted to makes sure there is no COI here with me editing this article under those circumstances. Also, do I need to run this by Calltech and the other that edited my article so far to remove the external links etc?

Dan —Preceding unsigned comment added by D3innovation (talk • contribs) 22:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification; I now clearly understand your goal. Assuming that you are somehow affiliated with Adaptive Audio, you are right to be concerned about conflicts of interest. The section that will probably help you the most in this situation is Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_avoid_COI_edits. In general, if one can avoid editing articles that cause conflicts of interest, that is usually suggested. However, there are suggestions of ways to avoid conflicts of interest is such editing must occur. You have been really good about being sure to do things properly, so I have faith you'll be able to take care of this too. One of the good suggestions at that page is to suggest/discuss any changed on the article's talk page before making any of them, so that you and other editors can make sure that there is no conflict of interest. Perhaps you could ask Calltech (and/or others) to help you in your editing of the page? Good luck, -- Natalya 23:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar

Thank you! LegoKTM 00:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Rihanna's Sales

Hi... Finally we have found a solution for the page of Good Girl Gone Bad... now you can delete the protection... ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.11.1.182 (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to what the editor above claims, there was no "solution" or "resolution" to the dispute at Good Girl Gone Bad. The first thing the 87.x.x.x IP editor did to the article after it was unprotected was revert wholesale my edits . Please read Talk:Good Girl Gone Bad. 86.1.249.35 (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Natalya... I write you to ask to protect the page of Good Girl Gone Bad, cause there's a lot of vandalism facts... and that's not good for wikipedia... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.10.242.13 (talk • contribs)

You seem to be adding quite a bit of the vandlism to that page. You've been warned on your talk page; please stop. -- Natalya 13:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

However, the name "Jack" also has roots in Hebrew, with the meaning "G-d is Gracious

Should it not be God? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.88.207 (talk) 11:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Restrictions on editing of articles between Abtract (talk · contribs), and Collectonian (talk · contribs) and Sesshomaru (talk · contribs)

Important Notice These restrictions are imposed upon the above named editors, and are not subject to amendment without agreement of a majority of the "involved administrators".

• Abtract, as one party, and Collectonian and Sesshomaru, as the other parties, are banned from interacting with, or, directly or indirectly, commenting on each other on any page in Misplaced Pages. Should either account violate their bans, they may be blocked for up to one week. After the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be increased to one month. (Note - this remedy may be expanded in scope to include interaction of any other user if it is later deemed necessary in the opinion of 3 administrators to prevent harassment.)
• A division between both parties of future work on disambituation pages may be agreed, at a neutral venue such as one of the involved admins talkpages, but otherwise the above restrictions apply.
• The editors are already aware of the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle, and are reminded that edit-warring has a disruptive and detrimental effect on Misplaced Pages. Should either user edit-war in the future, they may be subject to further sanctions (including wider revert limitations, blocks and bans).

Involved administrators are LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Natalya (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and JHunterJ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) who should act with due notice to all the other parties. Other admins are welcome to add their names to the above, and comments by any other party is welcome.

The discussion relating to the drafting of the above restriction (adapted by LessHeard vanU from the original - and revision - by Ncmvocalist (talk · contribs)) can be found here.

LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

+ + + + +

I trust you are still happy to be one of the 3... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I am. -- Natalya 13:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I REALLY need your help

Natalya, how do I get out of this death trap? My consent wasn't even given, yet this was "forced" onto me. I am heavily considering notifying the Misplaced Pages founders or someone of higher authority about this. Please, I implore you, save me. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there have been so many disputes between you and Abtract and Collectonian and Abtract that I really think this is the best solution. Do know, however, that this doesn't limit your contact with Collectonian; it only says that Abtract may not interact with the two of you, and vice versa. -- Natalya 13:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

But I don't want to get banned for editing a page where Abtract once was. How can I get out of it? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

As I understand, you're not going to be penalized for working on a page that Abtract edited last year; you will, however, be penalized if you edit a page that he has recently edited. The same things goes for him too; this is to force the two of you to respect each others' space and stop the edit warring once and for all, since nothing else has worked. If you truly have an issue with a page that he has worked on, you can bring it up to one of the administrators involved, to make sure that it is looked at. I emphasize truly, however, because I know there are plenty of things that the two of you have edit warred on that would easily just be let go and ignored, and we will not put up with being continually pestered about unimportant things. -- Natalya 18:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Abtract and Collectonian

Please see User talk:LessHeard vanU#Abtract.2C Again. Any comments appreciated. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Um... The "resolution" may be unravelling, and a third party opinion would be very much appreciated (and don't worry about stomping on my toes if need be, honesty at the moment is of greater import than decency!) Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Pain (disambiguation)

Any suggestions on how I could rework the top? It still doesn't look that good. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean the music section? You could perhaps sub-section it by artists/songs/albums, which would make the list a bit longer. Also, you could/should put the table of contents to the right of the page (using {{TOCright}}), which should also help. -- Natalya 11:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, seems Abtract fixed it up . Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't that good? ... I cleaned it, you tweaked the detail so we each did what we do best. Halleluyah! Maybe there is a god afterall. Thanks Sess. 18:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Abtract (talk)

Unprotect Jaxtr

Hi Natalya,

You told me that to get jaxtr unprotected that I should add it to my page with sources. I've done so. http://en.wikipedia.org/User:IveFoundit. Can you please review and move back to http://en.wikipedia.org/Jaxtr.

Are there other steps I need to follow?

Thanks for your help.

Jim —Preceding unsigned comment added by IveFoundit (talk • contribs) 00:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back in touch; I'm just having a quick discussion with the administrator who originally deleted the page (at User_talk:Chick_Bowen#Jaxtr), but, at least in my opinion, it looks like you did a good job with the sources. -- Natalya 02:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It's been unprotected. If you haven't already, just double check that there are no problems with the article under Misplaced Pages:Spam, and you should be all set! -- Natalya 15:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for your advice and help with this. Take care.

Jim —Preceding unsigned comment added by IveFoundit (talk • contribs) 16:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Halloween

Dearest Natalya,
Zacharycrimsonwolf wishes you a Happy Halloween! Send this card to other spookers, even if it's a little early. Have a spooky Halloween and cheers!

If you have a reckless disregard for your sanity...

...I would be grateful if you would address the continuing Abtract, Collectonian etc. discussion on my talkpage. It seems that a formal adoption of one of the further wordings proposed by you is required, since it is not accepted that the understanding we came to previously would be a sufficient basis to sanction anyone who acted contrary to it - since it would not be bad faith to believe that it was not part of the spirit of the restrictions because it had not been clearly stated. I prefer your first option of there being no interaction between Abtract and Collectonian on any page that had been edited by the other recently, as determined by the more recent of 50 edits/2 weeks, with the caveat that Abtract and Sesshomaru may agree to not report each other for minor transgressions of the restrictions independently... Please could we centralise discussion on my talkpage?

If this does not fly I am tempted to place all the past discussions on one page and request an ArbCom - I am uncertain if I want to continue stretching good faith in an attempt to keep everyone editing and avoiding upsetting each other. Oh, well! ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:Requests for arbitration#Abtract and Collectonian (and Sesshomaru)

Please note that I have made a RfAR here with you as a named party. You are invited to make a statement in respect of the request. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Gyn Talk (Visual Fiction)

Dear Natalya: again, thank you very much for your initial help when I first joined Misplaced Pages as a contributor/editor back in July. I have a question/favor to ask. Editor Dzied Bulbash has removed my Misplaced Pages article Gyn Talk (Visual Fiction) from the category Feminism and Health three times. (Editor Dakinijones had placed the article Gyn Talk (Visual Fiction) in the category of Feminism and Health on August 18, 2008.) Bulbash currently has placed this article about a series of paintings about women’s health in the Articles for Deletion page. These Misplaced Pages editors have distorted the facts, attacked/insulted me personally, and, in my opinion, are using personal biases in order to attack the merit/subject(s) matter(s) of the article. Furthermore, I think that this information might be of interest to you and the rest of the Misplaced Pages editors, because of the possibility that editor Dzied Bulbash may take action to remove further articles from Misplaced Pages that are in the category of Feminism and Health or in any other category that he does not like, for whatever person/ideological reason or (deliberate) lack of knowledge about the topic(s). If you would like to share your thoughts on this matter of deletion of the article titled Gyn Talk (Visual Fiction), there is a discussion on the entry Gyn Talk (Visual Fiction) on the Articles for Deletion Page. I thank you in advance for your kind assistance to this matter. I trust your expertise, insight, and sound advice. P.S. If you know, could you kindly direct me to the Misplaced Pages page/subpage where it describes the protocol regarding censorship, personal attacks, and vandalism (including how to deal with any of these issues)? Thanks again. All my best, Joseph Levi (talk) 02:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Abtract-Collectonian

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Abtract-Collectonian/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Abtract-Collectonian/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 12:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I made a proposal at LHvU's talk page. If you agree with it, please sign below the second set of +'s there. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Replies & amendment made there; let me know your thoughts. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)