Talk:Natashya

This article should probably be watched by someone, preferably an admin, for people going through it and deleting sections of content for no reason. I have (and am) spending a fair bit of time trying to compile an accurate history and telling of the event so a bit of help would be appreciated in the interests of accuracy. Reene 17:05, 29 November 2007 (CST)

This is a good article, thank you for putting it together, Reene. As for your concerns about violation, I think we need to reach a level of compromise here. If it was a matter of entire sections of the article being removed, that would be another matter. However, this is just one name, that of a player not a GM-controlled NPC. If a user would rather not have his or her character listed here, as the Natashya character and her story is viewed differently by different people, and they have asked not to have their name listed, I think that their wishes should be respected. The article can still be accurate with the omission of one player character name. Perhaps, instead of mentioning the name, you can say "amongst others" since it reads as if you were only listing a few of those characters involved. Having read the article as it stands at the time of my posting here, it really doesn't detract from the details of the article to have one name omitted.

BTW, None of my characters have any extended knowledge of this story line in game, so I'm rather unbiased in this matter. I don't know the exact nature of this person's involvement in the plot, or why they don't wish to have their name listed. I only know they've asked to have it removed, and my judgment on this matter is to leave the name omitted. Like I mentioned a few times, the article is very good, and to me is complete as is (unless you have other details to add, Reene).--Naeya ^(talk) 19:56, 29 November 2007 (CST)

I named the key players in the event, both past and present, which in this case is... everyone that I could think of. I think trying to tell the story without mentioning these key players and their impact is like trying to tell the Velmix story without mentioning Magmus, quite frankly. But you're the admin and I must defer to your judgment, which it seems is to compromise. Consider my next addition my compromise. Reene 20:21, 29 November 2007 (CST)

I think that is a good compromise, and will support it if the article is changed again. Thank you for understanding.--Naeya ^(talk) 20:29, 29 November 2007 (CST)

The above has been very interesting and, I think, suggests that we do not presently have a consensus on when/why information should be included/excluded from the DR Wiki. I've made an (overlong) post about this in Elanthipedia:Town Green (policy) that interested parties may wish to read and or comment on. --Basselope 23:06, 29 November 2007 (CST)

For accuracy's sake, my character was not a commissioned Ambassador at the time of her involvement with Natashya. I would really rather prefer the "amongst others" suggestion that Naeya made.

Also, there is some misinformation in the article. I was told that it was best to post on this page before editing, so I will do so, and then edit if it is not changed. "Natashya left a will to Ragad instructing him to carry out her last wishes and take on the mantle of her position within the Thieves' Guild." This is incorrect, as nowhere in Natashya's will did she instruct Ragad to take on her position within the Thief Guild hierarchy. -- Pythea

Ragad is an Enforcer in the same position Natashya was. He took Natashya's place after her death. I was told that these were among her last requests and instructions by Ragad himself, who has thus far not proven himself a liar. Reene 05:40, 1 December 2007 (CST)

I am referring specifically to the parchment will she left with Alrina. Perhaps the wording of your sentence can be adjusted if you are referring to oral instructions.--Pythea 06:40, 1 December 2007 (CST)

Quick suggestion so far as events are concerned. Happy to see more info on the pre/post Sorrow stuff, but maybe we should add approximate RL dates in as well, just for reference? Thoughts? --Ysselt 14:46, 3 December 2007 (CST)

First revision on Assassin portion of this article for factual references. Obviously still more to be added but my notes and logs are all over the place. The article as originally posted captures but a small biased portion of the events surrounding Natashya and does not do this event or the events team a service. --Pascheinw 15:24, 3 December 2007 (CST)

Please stop editing the disclaimer that states that the article is not accurate. The article intentionally omits the actions and participation of some important figures, even though that information is available. It is therefore not accurate. Readers should be informed of the inaccuracy, hence the note. --Mazrian 15:45, 3 December 2007 (CST)

Intentionally omitting anecdotal details does not make the existing details inaccurate, it simply makes the article incomplete. You are choosing to overlook the subtle difference, that is why I am editing the disclaimer. Excluding a name does not contradict the facts and progression of the storyline.

I have added a section entitled "The Enforcer" to more accurately describe the position of certain participants in the events relating to Natashya, an area which the prior version of the article was inadequate.--Pythea 18:26, 3 December 2007 (CST)

I will admit, I flipped my lid when I saw I was mentioned in this article without having shown the courtesy of being asked or told. It was very short-lived. I thought about it- This storyline is simply amazing. The complexities involved took a LOT of work by the GMs for this creation. I am PROUD of the work they have done. However, my temper was already short, and I got angry all over again. Yes, there were several errors that needed to be fixed. Negative connotation is rampant throughout the entire article. It could have been presented in a much more unbiased state. After a cool-down period of exactly two days, I went in and editted the paragraph I was mentioned in. I don't have the time for the whole article. There was absolutely no information deleted, and a small tidbit added. It was mostly reworded to improve how it sounded and fixed a few grammatical errors. --Rainea

Pythea, the people and details being omitted are not anecdotal. The wholesale exclusion of people from the account of events changes the account in a material way. We're not only talking about a name. --Mazrian 18:51, 3 December 2007 (CST)

Mazrian, if the omissions are not anecdotal, then add them instead of engaging in an edit war. --Basselope 19:00, 3 December 2007 (CST)

As I just posted, I enhanced the accuracy of the article with my submission of the section, "The Enforcer." I did not omit anything but the name of my character, a character which is not central to the plot of the Triad, despite your opinion.--Pythea 19:04, 3 December 2007 (CST)

Article Locked

This article has been locked because of a conflict concerning content. Please see above, and this discussion for details and to add your comments. Until a consensus is reached, the article will remain locked as is. I'm sorry it had to come to this, but this conflict must be resolved. --Naeya ^(talk) 17:17, 1 December 2007 (CST)

I agree, Naeya, I think we should keep it frozen for a few days to let things (hopefully) cool down. --Farman 18:07, 1 December 2007 (CST)

I unlocked the page, trusting to people's common sense and honor system. Unless the page has been blatantly defaced or filled with slander, we ask that you do not add or remove someone else's name without their consent. The policy on this is still under debate, but I'm relying on people's good sense to keep an edit war from occurring again. This article has various other facts that were question, so I opened it for those to be fixed. Keep disputes to this talk page. --Naeya ^(talk) 14:31, 3 December 2007 (CST)