User talk:Natkabrown

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

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

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

	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]

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]

• I thank you so much! Natkabrown (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 ;)

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!