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)

I get that you don't want Pythea to be associated with this event for whatever reason, but we aren't just talking about you.

Basselope, I don't think I can add those details without sparking an even larger edit war. The more committed editors are going to win this one, and the wiki and its readers are the losers. Oh well. --Mazrian 19:12, 3 December 2007 (CST)

I completely re-did the warning message, feel free to edit for grammar. But please try to keep even that neutral as I have done. --Callek 19:27, 3 December 2007 (CST)

That seems like a decent compromise. I disagree that any participants in events that are public record have a privacy right, but alas. --Mazrian 19:39, 3 December 2007 (CST)

I am completely awful at Wiki editing since I am beyond still new to this - so please forgive any errors I make in this. I removed Rainea's name because it was very much the player's wish, yesterday, that it be removed. With the edits of this piece it may no longer be the case. However, I removed it as that was the last thing I was communicated. I have dropped her a message that if it was her intention to leave it - to please put it back or I will put it back for her. I have no intention of ever touching this article again beyond that. Sorry for confusion. --Ahnoui 21:37, 3 December 2007 (CST)

That is ok, but in the future I think it might probably be best for the player(s) involved to speak for themselves (to us) in this regard. The wiki accounts are free, and editing is fairly easy (as even you have found :-) ). But thank you for letting us know why. --Callek 21:47, 3 December 2007 (CST)

I'll start by stating quite plainly that I was involved in these events and with this NPC. The vast majority of what I wrote about were events that I was directly present for or heard about first hand from people that were. I had the help of multiple participants in the event when writing this article. I have consulted nearly everyone I mentioned in the article for information concerning the event and the history of the event as it relates to this NPC in the past.

In short, I do not speak from a position of pure ignorance. I do not write from pure hearsay. Is it possible I misremembered some detail of the article? Certainly - am a human being, a fallible mortal creature, and I make mistakes. Is it possible I was lied to or directly mislead by one of the participants for whatever reason? Yes, that is certainly possible, as there are some within the article that have a reputation for encouraging that sort of misdirection even among players. But what I wrote was correct to the best of my knowledge, and as unbiased as I could make it, despite bewildering claims to the contrary. My character is in there too after all, and linked to actions and crimes more damning than 90% of those named in the article. When I was compiling names, I did err on the side of including as many as I could recall to avoid claims of favoritism, mainly of people such as Rainea that had expressed a very strong interest and desire in being involved and had been proclaimed as being "in" by people like Ragad in the past. It's not a perfect article, it certainly doesn't include everything that it could, but it was what I felt was a good start at least, and worlds better than what we had before.

There seems to be some dispute over the actual importance of the PCs named, specifically Pythea and Majebrad. Well, Majebrad is who introduced me to this event in the first place and helped get me involved. His character had a very close personal relationship with Natashya. They were very explicitly lovers and did not often deign to hide this fact, at least not from people that were close to them. Majebrad acted as her bodyguard and often accompanied her where ever she went. As stated, he was present for and aided with the torture of Farsten along with one other PC (that was me, too). She called him 'arn fana' as stated and had told him she loved him, and this is still referenced in places in ongoing events. When she died, he directly received a gift of a medallion she'd had crafted for him from her body. While he is not a Thief, this was in no way strictly a Thief event considering the sheer scope of it all, and it included people from multiple guilds as prominent players, such as Paschein and myself. There is also the fact that Maje is one of the Triad, which are the three people that this event is currently revolving around. To say Maje did not and does not have a significant role in this event is disingenuous at best.

Pythea was not as involved as Maje, Paschein, or Ragad, but she was still very often present for things like meetings and made a habit of accompanying Alrina where ever she went as well, and considering the closely intertwined (and occasionally slightly creepy) nature of Alrina and Natashya's relationship I felt it was more than reasonable to mention her here in this article. I would honestly place Pythea's impact on the event up there with mine, and I don't think my place in the overall event (at least recently) was tiny. The Thief portion of the event was something Pythea was deeply involved in as well from my understanding, though I would leave others to speak more on that.

I am very glad to see some actual facts being added to the wiki instead of seeing things arbitrarily removed without explanation. I still feel that considering the bewildering fuss over this article that has managed to direct quite a lot of attention to it that there is quite a ways to go to make it more presentable. I hope to see more good contributions made and fewer petty edit wars. We're all after the same common goal here after all, right? Things get done faster if people work together. Reene 04:14, 4 December 2007 (CST)

Reene, you are completely missing the point in regards to my actions. Based on the content of the edits in the article and the talk page, you and Mazrian think I'm trying to pretend/cover up/"disavow" that my character wasn't involved. This is not the case. Just because I don't wish to lend my characters name to a specific event written about in Elanthipedia by you does not mean I'm denying I was ever involved, especially when I've been conspicuously posting information about the very same event in other forums.

Reene wrote, "I would honestly place Pythea's impact on the event up there with mine, and I don't think my place in the overall event (at least recently) was tiny." Hey, that's fine and dandy. However, you do not have ownership over my participation. That is your interpretation, and as I am responsible for my actions, I plan on adjusting written claims to my involvement (that I have not granted consent to) how I see fit.

On a side note: "made a habit of accompanying Alrina where ever she went as well" -- This is your interpretation, not the facts. I really think you need to work on your word choice when trying to be unbiased and neutral, as I am noticing a trend in complaints about your writing style.--Pythea 05:01, 4 December 2007 (CST)

Just so we're all clear, Pythea...do you think you should have editorial control over any article someone might write based on their own direct experiences and observations, just because it mentions you?--Mazrian 07:35, 4 December 2007 (CST)

I think this is a fair question that deserves an answer. And quite frankly, every claim of bias I've seen is just that...a claim without any explanation to back it up or suggestion to fix it, which leaves us all precisely where we started. Yes, I will be slightly more opinionated on the talk pages because that's what they are for. If you propose I exercise NPOV here as well I don't know what to tell you. Reene 12:34, 4 December 2007 (CST)

I'm leaving this for now "A short time before to her death, Natashya established a group of close companions that often aided her. Various tasks included serving as bodyguards, spying, acting as an informant, as well as events prior mentioned. Included among the group were former Court Advisor Paschein" but it's neither accurate nor complete in scope of Paschein's participation. --Pascheinw 12:07, 4 December 2007 (CST)

If the article is neither accurate nor complete, please provide constructive suggestions for improving the article. --Basselope 12:58, 4 December 2007 (CST)

-- Sorrow related timeframe, there were two contracts and several incidents that I am searching for details on to give a more complete picture of that time. If the player of Syia reads here, could she contact me, Syia's involvement was significant enough it's worth a mention.--Pascheinw 12:07, 4 December 2007 (CST)

-- Noblewoman blurb is not accurate, if you're looking to implicate Paschein in events, this is where it would have started. There are a number of things that relate to this time that will need to be added and corrected. --Pascheinw 12:07, 4 December 2007 (CST)

I wrote what I was told and could recall, and my knowledge of those specific events a long time ago was sporadic at best. I'm wondering why you removed the shift mention though? That was something that got mentioned several times in-game when Natashya's diary was turned over to Vorclaf. Reene 12:34, 4 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)

It seems that at least two users have engaged in an edit-war again, I feel my most recent change can curb that, and I took the liberty of posting a warning to their User_talk pages. --Callek 19:27, 3 December 2007 (CST)