User talk:La goutte de pluie/archive 2



=Archive 2=

Suggestion
You should read George Orwell's essay "Politics and the English Language". 

An extract: "Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration: so that the fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers."

Take note of the recommendations at the end:

1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

2. Never us a long word where a short one will do.

3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.

5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

With best wishes namussi 61.14.89.95 02:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello!
Interesting that you are just 15, and yet so widely read, articulate, and obviously very intelligent. I am intrigued. --shianux 19:19:17, 2005-08-05 (UTC)

Iota Phi Theta Fraternity, Inc.
Quoting Natalinampf:

02:56, 28 May 2005 Natalinasmpf (if isn't used as a promotional tool, make it more neutral)

My question to you is how to make an article like this more neutral? As its creator, I have made numerous changes (compromises) based off of the feedback from Weyes (who did not state the reason for their edits initially and clearly has not made any effort to see why editing this article without reviewing related articles I made available to them to see what information should be deemed relevant) and yet there seems to be a dispute as to my desire to make a resolution. I have tried to do so a few times, but Weyes has done little in the form of compromise. Resolutions should be made with compromises, but should also be made after seeking informed opinions in which Weyes has shown a lack of desire to do. If you or Weyes review the other articles and rather than remove information decide to assist me in making sure that equal weight of relevant information is given on each organization page, I am more than willing to make any compromises available. However, calling into question the neutrality of an article without making any effort toward compromise (ie: an informative article that does not delete relevant content, but instead organizes it in proper format and structure) seems a little off base and bias in itself.

Thank you. :Suntzu1963 04:01, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I was busy at the time, and did not have the time to go and copyedit it. First of all, the things mentioned should be notable, and should not include personal details we can't verify. It should be addressed in a third party, neutral and formal tone. I will go look at it later, thanks for being cooperative about it though. -- Natalinasmpf 11:57, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Dialects
Please take a look in my survey drive in. Thanks.

Tan 22:07, 1 June 20005 (UTC)

Thank you!
Before I forget, thank you for awarding me the barnstar! What I have done is nothing...really! ;)--Huaiwei 17:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hello!
Ah, third HGer I've seen around here. Still newbish hereFD2 15:06, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Singapore places
Hi ! Good work on the many articles relating to geography, urban areas, and places in Singapore. These are becomimg excellent online resource and I've learned alot from them already. I wonder if you may be interested in reviewing some Singapore maps in WikiProject Singaporean places/Maps and give your comments on improvement and how these maps can be further expand and be used in the articles. -- Thanks. Vsion 05:31, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Likewise, thanks for your work on Kampong Glam ~ Dpr 05:04, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Return of the Condor Heroes
Thanks for your edits on this article. And nice to meet you. Jute 01:52, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Chess and poetry
Sure; whatever you want me to do, I'll do. By the way, Round 1 just completed :-D Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 22:36, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Lee Kuan Yew
Hello, Natalina, I am Mr Tan, and I need a few tips from you concerning this issue. Due in part the fact that Huaiwei seems to be on leave for at least two days from my observation of his recent edits, and our close proximity of our age (I'm fourteen to fifteen too), I believe that our intellectual level should not be very far apart, so I would need some advice concerning the "Harry" on Lee Kuan Yew's name which I have discussed with Huaiwei, Mel Etitis and Khaosworks.

Firstly, I would appreciate if you can inspect carefully between the English version of his biography that you Huaiwei gave and the Chinese version of his biography that I gave:

"But my grandfather's admiration for the British made him add "Harry" to my name, so I was Harry Lee Kuan Yew. My two younger brothers, Kim Yew and Thiam Yew, were also giben Christian names - Dennis and Freddy respectively. At that time few non-Christian Chinese did this, and at school later I was to find myself the odd boy out with a personal name like "Harry". When my youngest brother, Suan Yew, was born in 1933, I persuaded my parents not to give him a Christian name since we were not Christians."

"&#25105;&#20986;&#19990;&#30340;&#26102;&#20505;, &#23478;&#37324;.... &#20294;&#26159;, &#31062;&#29238;&#20986;&#20110;&#23545;&#33521;&#22269;&#20154;&#30340;&#20208;&#24917;, &#32473;&#25105;&#22810;&#21152;&#20102;&#19968;&#20010;&#27915;&#21517; Harry. &#20110;&#26159;&#25105;&#30340;&#20840;&#21517; &#21464;&#25104; "Harry Lee Kuan Yew". "

You notice that your version makes no mention that his "full name" is "Harry Lee Kuan Yew", but not the Chinese biography.

Also, I am wondering about the comment from Mel Etitis: "reverted attempt to circumvent consensus on naming": What consensus? I thought that he is going to ask his colleague concerning Lee's name, but days has passed and he had not given an answer. If you notice my edit that he reverted,, I made an attempt to say that he is "born Harry Lee Kuan Yew". However, the current state of the article says that he is also known as "Harry Lee Kuan Yew".

If this is the case, the introduction might as well be Harry Lee Kuan Yew, even though you say that his biography, and all other official document dealings uses "Lee Kuan Yew", just like Jimmy Carter, I think. What do you think? Your comment would be greatly appreciated.

Mr Tan 13:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support
Hi Natalina! Thanks for supporting my RFA! Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

chess template
The contrast doesn't seem too good for the boards. Why not create a separate template instead, that way we can choose either. -- Natalinasmpf 01:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "contrast"? Do you mean the green color?  By the way, I just uploaded darker versions of the white pieces, since they faded out a bit when scaled down.  Perhaps that was what you meant?  dbenbenn | talk 02:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what I meant. It seems good now. -- Natalinasmpf 14:19, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. I've asked User:H Padleckas whether the new board at Template talk:Chess position t looks good in his browser.  If he says yes, I intend to try the new version of Template:Chess position t at Template:Chess position again.  After all, the only way to find out whether it works is to have people looking at it!  dbenbenn | talk 18:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

S. Dhanabalan article
Hi! I saw your comments on votes for deletion, and I thought I'd let you know that Mgm wasn't asking for the article to be deleted, he was moving it from being quickly deleted with no discussion to a forum where it could be debated. He himself never asked for it to be deleted, and I'm quite confident that it won't be. Best wishes. --Scimitar 22:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re : I award you this barnstar
Hey Natalinasmpf, thanks a lot for the barnstar! Much appreciated! Don't worry, I know where to put it... =D - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 08:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

By the way,
I dropped out of high school, yet that has not stopped me from a successful career in engineering, product design and manufacturing, Fortune 500 biomedical research equipment engineering, certificated stick and rudder pilot, A+P (aircraft and powerplant mechanic and construction from blueprint) Oh, also master mechanist and hand craftsman. Would you still deny my ability to talk about Metallurgy, simply because I don't have a the proper diploma hanging on the wall? All in good will.... TTLightningRod 22:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't have to be from an educational institution. Peer reviewed certification, ie. winning awards, peer-reviewed papers and patents are good forms of verifying material. Writing books is not. -- Natalinasmpf 22:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed: Please have a serach for the patents in both the USPO and Canada, held by Dr. Correa. I can't speak to all the book stuff, and internet reference is slim (that does play a part in our own sistemic bias), for if people in our Age don't see it on-line in google, "it must not exist".  If I may, I have read a very large amount of "the writing" by Pons/Flishman, Puntoff, Mallove and the Correas.  Including much before and after which wholly disagrees with what they say.


 * It does depend what sort of patents. For you, I meant patents in your case of engineering and design. Which I'm against patents in general anyway (being an anarcho-communist and a supporter of free software), since I generally dislike patents in biotechnology even more, but I tolerate it in the mechanical sciences in terms of design, rather than patenting ideas. Note, there are companies that goes around patenting raw genetic sequences with no application, which is not good evidence of achievement. Again, the patent also should have been commented and thoroughly checked (seeing how there was a patent passed for Adams motor, I'm kind of skeptical of patents without papers, to me they are supportive, not substantive. -- Natalinasmpf 23:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Very curious (striking, if not out right disturbing) point you make. The idea contained in Correa pantent 5,397,706 is for a purely synthetic (non-biological) chemical formula.  To be used in place of contaminate-able swine (pig) serum, for use in lab growth and study petrie dishes.  The "idea" was in-fact stolen by reference to the public patent, reformulated by a bio-corp which re-introduced a swine component.  Thus, the Bio-Corp in question is to this day, able to eternally "re-invent" and patent "their" proprietary formula by leveraging the recomb DNA point you raise (which I agree is very disgusting).  I understand this lead to several years of litigation by Correa to defend his idea of a non-bio based lab tool.  The other patents I am familiar with, Mallove/Correa Hyborac, is purely physics and mechanically related.  However, I understand that the science simply has a large component which is theoretically referred back to biophysical chemistry.  Kind of creepy, but something of the reverse to what you are speaking to.


 * One thing I think very important to point out, is that from what I felt, those people are so off to the fringe, that they may just be trying to invent an alternative language (semantics) to accompany by clear admission, an unorthodox approach. At the same time, still measuring empirical evidence like everyone else, and it appears to be in line with the scientific method.  The article in question, I find, suffers much much more from painful semantics, (as it could only have been written by someone interested, immersed or familiar with their writing, as there is a mountain of it) than it does by lack of reference or even sight-able peer review.  If you are interested in building a NPOV article, simply describing only the field in more mainstream words with all it controdictions, I would like very much to help see that happen.  TTLightningRod 22:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I've read the entire thing (which is very painful to read scientifically because it asserts so much, what I'd term as fallacious)...they don't seem to assert much empirical evidence, and just exactly what do they do in their labs? Find out about subatomic particles, and proof, complete with traces and counters and innovative ways to find evidence of those particles they speak of (compare: we have evidence of positrons and neutrinos, but not for gravitons), I highly doubt they really are "retranslating" the terms, since there's no point to. To me, the terms awfully remind me of the charlatans involved in animal magnetism. Seriously, "kinetoregenerative phenomenon"? Even quantum mechanics has simpler jargon than that. A massbound or massfree electron? Wow, way to go, they can redefine a key fundamental particle without even showing a scrap of evidence. -- Natalinasmpf 23:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Excellent points, they should be torn asunder. I did found this under google "Correa P.N" Talk about a painful read..... (changed to "Blood" pir.) http://www.bloodjournal.org/cgi/content/abstract/83/1/99?ijkey=64455064b65d0fac49e1e1fc1d7f975ac51995a6&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
 * Correa P.N., and Axelrad A.A. Circulating erythroid progenitors in Polycythemia vera are hypersensitive to IGF-I. Blood. 1994: 83: 99-112.
 * U.S. Patent No. 5,397,706 Filed August 6, 1993. Issued March 14, 1995 to Paulo N. Correa and Arthur A. Axelrad. Serum-free basal and culture medium for hematopoietic and leukemia cells. Not available commercially; we make it ourselves.


 * Get that last part! TTLightningRod 23:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * As to PhD'd field of study... having worked in laser and flowcytometry, although applied to biology, the field was highly demanding upon physics and chemistry.  "Molecular Biology" does not strike me as out of scope for a study of energy.  As it may have strong leanings to the understanding of mitochondria and cellular "power".  From empirical evidence, biology, chemistry and physics are quite tightly related.  Lends towards allowing a pass on the point of Correa not haveing a direct degree in Physicsa, per say.

Ong Teck Chin
In an edit summary for the article Ong Teck Chin (the one I nominated for deletion), you said that "you seem to ignore a lot of facts." I don't know whether you meant you in singular or in plural, and who it was aimed at. But out of curiosity (perhaps you have already answered this question on the VfD): which facts seem to be ignored? Aecis 22:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think you are doing a good job on improving the article on Ong Teck Chin. When you are done and before the voting closes (5 days after the notice), you may want to leave messages on the talk pages of editors who seemed less firm in their opposition, asking them to review their votes in light of the material you added. You might swing a few votes your way. And remember, if you lose, its not personal. Articles on living people don't seem to fare as well as articles on pokemon characters and train stations. Good luck. DS1953 01:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Referring to the VFD: The fact that he is large school principal, government censor and fundraiser is not necessarily impressive. However, you can explain further (in the article) for example, about his importance in the scale of Singapore, making him more prominent than he sounds to outsiders. Would he be the equivalent to government minister elsewhere? You could also state the outside references in the end of the article where they could be easier to notice (and no, this particular article does not constitute a "flood", but there are already others...) - Skysmith 09:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Helcoid
Hi N. You (correctly I think) said don't respond to Helcoid but then got caught up again. Don't worry, no-one is taking her seriously, there is no point responding, and certainly not at length. IMHO. William M. Connolley 22:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC).


 * You can always raise the issue of "personal attacks" at WP:AN/I or WP:RFC, especially if they persist or get especially vicious. No personal attacks is Wikipedia policy.  Good job keeping cool in the face of provocation.  Keep cool, do your best to ignore them and prove (as you have done quite well) that age is not the best indicator of maturity.  Guettarda 22:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Be careful - you are at risk of breaking the 3RR. Guettarda 01:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Duly noted. What he did was insert spiteful comments like changing "dectractors" into "detractors who have not read the material", so I assumed that could be called vandalism, and not violating the 3RR. -- Natalinasmpf 01:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Removing the personal attacks aren't covered by the 3rr, feel free to remove them. However, you also reverted other material.  The matter has been raised by pjacobi on WP:AN/I - other people will get involved.  It isn't the end of the world if things stand for a few minutes.  I don't want you to get yourself blocked.  Be patient.  Guettarda 01:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Helicoid's legal threats break another Wikipedia policy, but taunting him/her only lowers you to his/her level. Having the last word isn't the same as winning an argument.  Sometimes the best way to win a fight is simply to say nothing and show you are the bigger person.  Guettarda 02:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I've got to go to bed (should have done so hours ago) Looks like he's gone for the moment, I'll chack on things in the morning. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 03:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * ya, I'm keeping score too, gnite TTLightningRod 07:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * You appear to be letting them get to you. I wouldn't bother if I were you. I've seen loads of this type in my time. One thing I have learned is never rise to their bait. Just keep calm and ignore them. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 21:47, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations
I like your ideology, thanks.--GengisKanhg (my talk) 02:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your "revert" on Huaiwei's user page
Your recent "revert" on Huaiwei's user page and subsequent edit summary "rv vandalism (I can't NOBODY believe noticed this)" is grossly incorrect.

If you click on, you will find that this user was editing the Adam Greenfield article when he spotted Huaiwei's mistake.

He/she is correct when pointing out that Huaiwei made a gross error when editing the link to Special Operations Command. The correct link should be Special Operations Command and not Special Operations Command (Australia) as edited by Huaiwei. A simple check on Google reveals that this 207.237.55.126 is correct.

Please refrain from making gross accusations (e.g. 'rv vandalism') and check your facts before making wild accusations and embarrassing yourself.

Now would you revert your own mistake and perhaps place 207.237.55.126's comments in the correct page.


 * Goodness sake, I had just woken up, it really looked like vandalism. I hardly think "I'm embarassing myself", especially when the user messed up the harmony and flow on Huaiwei's user page, and where it was inappropriate to put it, even if it was a comment. It was by an anomymous editor, so yeah, I guess I didn't bother to move the edits, because well, I'm just prejudiced (its justified) against anonymous editors who don't get their own articles - they are more suspect. It was a kneejerk response. Its not "grossly incorrect" - putting stuff in the wrong page on user pages is indeed vandalism. At least from an anonymous editor. -- Natalinasmpf 07:33, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pray tell, have you seen Vandalism (for definition of vandalism), and if it is really vandalism, Dealing with vandalism? Most important, have you seen Please do not bite the newcomers before?


 * hmmmmm

It was a kneejerk reaction, and I had just woken up and was semi-dazed. I'm sorry. -- Natalinasmpf 16:29, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Any help would be appreciated
if you would take a look at my RfC on User:Flowerofchivalry here. This is my first time doing a RfC, any comments would be much appreciated. Thanks. -Hmib 11:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, some of it seems a counter-retaliation in itself. Even though its justified, make the Rfc less accusative (ie. tone down the bold), and more like bringing up a problem (which is a user), that the Wikipedia community needs to address in general (by reasoning et al.) -- Natalinasmpf 19:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Sigh, I couldn't help but be accusative, this guy's been wearing on my nerves for a long time. I really think there's nothing we (normal users) can do about him... it's a failure to listen. I seriously doubt anything will change because of this RfC, either. He's mind is set and nothing we can do will deter him from his set course. All these came during my final exams... who knows, he might have pulled my GPA down a few decimals. I'll sue him if I don't get into Harvard pre-med... :D Heh, just kidding. Well, thanks for your comment; it will help out on my next RfC. Which I hope is never. -Hmib 20:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BJAODN
Please don't post content with the sole purpose of having it appear at BJAODN. ;)

Firefox
that's ok, I wasn't sure where put it. Ok : I give it to youy ! :]

bye 82.226.197.187 10:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I moved it to the main Mozilla Firefox article instead, near the section about market adoption. Seemed more appropriate there. -- Natalinasmpf 10:50, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Competition needed
Please sign up at User:Tparker393/Team Game 1 Nathan256 29 June 2005 19:11 (UTC)

Communism
What is the "quirky problem" you refer to in the edit summary here? Did I err in removing all those trailing spaces and tabs while removing Dudtz's vandalism? I didn't see any purpose for them, and the page renders identically in my browser with and without them (not counting the extra dash and the misformated Google link in the old version you reverted to), so I assumed they were just wasting space. If I've made any kinds of mistakes, please let me know. Thanks, 164.76.162.246 3 July 2005 03:17 (UTC)

I didn't know what was going on, so I reverted to the last last version, just to be safe. I restored your edit after you clarified it. -- Natalinasmpf 3 July 2005 03:43 (UTC)


 * Dudtz: I didn't vandalize anything
 * besides you make me look like an anti communist
 * I actually want communism back in Russia

Uh, this wasn't a relevant section to add the comment into, but anyway, you did create a bunch of rather nonsensical pages. As for "anti-communist" and "wanting communism back in Russia", such an esteem of the nobility and a sanction for authoritarianism makes that highly suspicious. -- Natalinasmpf 5 July 2005 16:35 (UTC)

Kardos Kingdom
anarcho-communists are just dumb how do you create a society of workers without any sense of order why don't you try a Communist Republic

Wow, well anarchism doesn't mean lack of order, it just means lack of a higher ruler. Peer organisation can regulate, while preventing abuse and tyranny. Republics get hijacked by politicians too easily, I'm afraid. -- Natalinasmpf 3 July 2005 18:41 (UTC)

I believe in united works, which is what left-wing economics plays with, but I disagree with their lack of economic freedom. I believe that syndicates that operate on open source and other left-wing ideals can outcompete corporations in a capitalist society. I believe in anarcho-syndicalism. I am always thinking about new ideas, and similar to you, I am a fifteen year old political radical. I want to know what your thoughts are on this. --coblin 10:21, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, anarcho-communism is probably compatible with anarcho-syndicalism, maybe philosophical emphasis is different, but highly compatible. -- Natalinasmpf 10:23, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, anarcho-communism doesn't have anyway to enforce communism, but anarcho-syndicalism encompasses the possiblity of communism - but doesn't enforce it. I do believe that communist syndicates would be highly successful, thus leading to the replacement of standard hierarchial corporations in an anarcho-syndicalist society. And yes, Euler's identity is remarkable. I wonder why... The co-efficient of i approaches zero as the base number gets closer to e... Australia doesn't have as much of a rigourous maths programme as I've heard Singapore does, so you probably have much better understanding of maths and science than I do. --coblin 10:32, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Police state
Doesn't the Singaporean government monitor all data coming in and out of the country? There was a scare in Australia a few years ago about the Singapore government using our own Optus satelites to spy on Australian communications. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 03:55 (UTC)

LOL. No, Singapore isn't a police state. It is authoritarian, but no, we don't have secret police that go around making "disappearances". We have utterly irrational things where the government uses "slander" and "libel" charges against prominent opposition members and political opposition, and the fact that it gerrymanders....and maybe the heavy fines for littering and smoking in public areas, and the death penalty for narcotics dealers, but that's basically it. What I fear is that in twenty years, it might degenerate into a police state, hence reform should happen now, before it is too late and does become one. No, Singapore's government doesn't "monitor all data coming in and out of the country". It, like the CIA, has the authority to place wiretaps and monitor selected communications, but it doesn't monitor the communications of every citizen. It does manage to detect terrorist threats quite easily though - given that it's hard to go unnoticed with an average density of 6500 people every square kilometre. If anything, I doubt Optus satellites can be used to spy on anything. Communications satellites work much differently than spy satellites. They just receive and transmit to their programmed locations. In order to change that, you'd need to send a costly mission to change the hardwired programming. Not like we had any reason to anyway - if anything, we'd be using it to spy on our own society, not yours. It's not like the Singaporean government needs to suppress any opposition in Australia, and I doubt it needs to resort to stealing identity and credit card numbers. I did have a wiretap placed on my own connection, but that was purely because I made comments about attacking/liberating China. I deserved it I guess, although I still think bombing the CCP headquarters is justified, just like bombing Saddam's palace was. -- Natalinasmpf 5 July 2005 04:07 (UTC)
 * You sound deadly :) JamesBurns 5 July 2005 05:48 (UTC)


 * Nah, not really. I do detest authoritarian and totalitarian governments, but that's not deadly. That's justified. -- Natalinasmpf 5 July 2005 07:10 (UTC)

News item
Yes, if you can make a write-up and point to an article update with the new info from the sources, I think this would definitely make a good ITN item. - Mgm|(talk) July 6, 2005 12:55 (UTC)

CSD
Hi. Thanks for your nominations for CSD. However, please note that "advertising, pseudoscience" is not a valid criterion for CSD. As such, I have nominated it in your stead for VfD here. Cheers, and keep up the good work. smoddy 9 July 2005 11:43 (UTC)


 * Ah, thanks. I thought advertising was a valid criterion for speedy deletion though? -- Natalinasmpf 9 July 2005 11:45 (UTC)


 * You are probably thinking of article criterion 3: "Any article whose contents consist only of an external link, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, or interwiki link.". Cheers, smoddy 9 July 2005 11:49 (UTC)

VFD
The user claimed that you had only one edit was using another guy's contributions as yours. Proof: Yes, but if we kept on that criteria or the vote was modified that way, then it would violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and sockpuppeteering guidelines. Insulting? I SPIT on your website. -- Natalinasmpf 07:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC) :* This user's only edit.-Splash 9 July 2005 15:46 (UTC) :* This user's only edit.-Splash 9 July 2005 15:46 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have 4733 edits. -- Natalinasmpf 07:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Any questions? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

GNAA
Hi! Back in December 2004, I sorted that page according to Google hits, for want of a better popularity measure. No one ever objected. It was later inadvertently changed (due to a partial revert), and I put back this ordering (using newer Google data). I recently posted on the talk page to ask what people thought about it. If you think there is something wrong with the current ordering, I would really appreciate if you took part in the discussion instead of initiating revert wars. Sam Hocevar 21:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

A tip
Re:this edit - in the future, if you want to clear the squid caches, click 'edit this page', and in the URL of the edit page, change &action=edit to &action=purge &rarr;Raul654 00:22, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Ecologics
I nominated Ecologics for deletion. Since the nomination, the article author has contacted me and asked for assistance with the article. I was initially dubious that the article was legitimate, however I have been convinced that it is being edited in good faith, albeit by a new and inexperienced editor. I have retracted my delete vote, and I would appreciate it if you would consider visiting the article and the deletion discussion, and reconsidering your deletion vote. Best regards, EvilPhoenix talk 03:17, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Go Images
I am just wondering why you have changed some (but not all) of the go images causing them to have diffrent background colors, sizes and fonts? It seems to have had a very detremental effect on the templates. Dalf | Talk 05:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I changed the ones that were mostly being used, and I didn't manage to complete making new images for everything yet...it's in the hundreds, bear with me! How is it detrimental? Most of the templates look fine to me, is it a cache issue?. I do need help with finishing updating everything though, so I have uploaded images of every "kind" of piece, just not position (ie. numbers, black, white, triangle and X), which you can adjust the liberty lines as appropriate. Thanks for bringing it up with me, anyway!-- Natalinasmpf 05:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Dunno I guess I just liked the colors before better. They looks more toy like now.  But they are not being used extensivly anyway so *shrug* I actually thik  mya have revereted one of them (a white 6 if I recall) before I came to my senses and left a mesage here.  We shoudl probbly check and change it back. Dalf | Talk 06:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually I remember now. It was actually the one on yoru user page that made me realse there was somethign wrong.  Have a look at it.  The way the colors are and such the white stones looks (though they are not) smaller than the black stones.  It might be an optical effect of my monitor resolution but that was not a problem with the previous version. Dalf | Talk 06:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, we had complaints concerning contrast, so I tried to make the colours less glaring. I'm experimenting with wood effects, so I think after this it won't be so bad. Gah, the white stones still have a glare problem though - I'm going to experiment with highlight effects. -- Natalinasmpf 06:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the glare effects are actually worse now. That might be why they looks not only smaller but diffrent sizes from eachother.  Dalf | Talk 08:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Imposter
Just in case it wasn't clear: the vandalism of your page earlier today was not me, it was an imposter who has now been permanently blocked. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:44, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

A bit of etiquette
Hi Natalina,

I saw your comment on Talk:Mitosis and just wanted to pass along a bit of advice: it's generally considered very rude to come to a page you've never edited and insult it. Even if you think it's of shoddy quality, even if other editors agree, it's just bad form to step on other people's work. As an anarcho-communist I hope you appreciate the value of such principles. Constructive commentary (or better yet, actual editing) is much more appreciated. Graft 14:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Well it was out of frustration - I was busy editing cancer and was counting on explanations made by mitosis to help elaborate...-- Natalinasmpf 00:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Mitosis
Hi those mitosis pics are great, but they are probably not PD. Images even if produced by research funded by US federal or state governments are not immediately in the PD, for instance the work of New York State is not in the PD unlike some of the US federal government images and sites. I think that you reallly need to find out who took the image and if it has been released into the PD, or these will have to be listed as copyvios.--nixie 10:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Well there was absolutely no copyright notice anywhere on the site. Not to mention, it was highly integrated into the New York State Health Department, just on a different domain for convenience purposes. It is devoted to educating the public, professionals and implied even commercial use allowed....at the worst it will be downgraded to fair use, I think. -- Natalinasmpf 10:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

It'd be great if you could get some kind of statement from them, if they are in the PD there is lots of great stuff we could use from there.--nixie 10:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll see about emailing them. I'm 70% sure it's PD. For one thing, if you go their pages concerning their image modulation software (basically, a program for modifying images in a special way) and its documentation, you see a copyright notice at the bottom, but the pages where I got the images from have no such notice. - Natalinasmpf 12:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Regarding prometaphase and metaphase - alignment of microtubules along the metaphase plate is thought to be a result of dynamic tension because of dual kinetochore attachment - i.e. the "lining up" probably isn't SO important to successful mitosis, but merely a byproduct of what IS important - dual attachment. An unattached kinetochore prevents the cell from entering anaphase (through some signaling mechanism). So, maybe prometaphase could be described as ending when at least one of every chromosome's kinetochores is attached, but there's probably no worthwhile strict definition, since there's no actual checkpoint involved. The metaphase/anaphase boundary, however, is very well-defined on the basis of that checkpoint. So, in summary: when every kinetochore is attached, the "metaphase plate" would already be formed on the basis of dynamic tension between opposing microtubules, and if this were to occur at the end of prometaphase, the cell, having passed the checkpoint, could proceed directly into anaphase. Graft 14:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Just some chit-chat
Hi, just stumbled on your user page and I like it a lot.

Your statement that there's "nothing wrong in being extreme for freedom" reminded me of this quote:

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" -

Stirring words, even though Barry Goldwater probably isn't your ideological role model :)

Haukurth 16:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi,there's a qsn for you.Taufik hidayat and Taufik Batisah are different,so i don't think you should redirect Taufik.You should turn  it into a disambig...203.124.2.8 13:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

equilateral triangle w/ Inkscape
If you're interested, I did reply to you: Reference_desk &brvbar; Reisio 00:24, 2005 July 23 (UTC)

Vandalism of your user page
Its a shame that some ignorant anons have been vandalizing your user page because they think communism is evil only because they are taught to (meaning they cant think for themselves). Anarcho syndicalist Jobe6 07:05, July 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I also was wondering why so many idiots focus on this precise page; amazing how cretins have time to spend, is it not ? Rama 08:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Communism-lite?
The use of semantics when describing a different take on communism is just mincing words. Communism is fundamentally flawed even if someone thinks there is a new way it could work. All versions of communism and anarchism lead to totalitarianism. While the abolution of private property, government controls everything. Whoever controls the government runs the world. At fifteen you probably are motivated to create equality amongst people. However, this ideal cannot be reached through government control of life. Go read Animal Farm for homework.

Oh yes. The "read Animal Farm" remark. However, I've read that, how many times? Oh, hundreds. The Soviet Union was not communist. You don't know what anarchism is, do you? Anarchism means abolishment of the authoritarian state. Bolshevism is flawed for relying on a centrally planned economy with an undemocratic, authoritarian government. True communism is nothing like that. You have never heard of libertarian socialism have you? That's what anarchist communism is - an extreme form of libertarian socialism. Nothing wrong with being extreme for freedom, anyway. Oh by the way, in communism, the government controls everything, only because everyone controls the government. It's direct democracy at its purest (Plato did remark it was anarchistic) - except on a decentralised, communal scale. -- Natalinasmpf 18:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Animal Farm is a good reading, but Homage to Catalonia is worth reading as well. Communism is not Stalinism, Capitalism is not Democracy. Rama 20:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * And besides, Animal Farm's message concerns politicians making sweeping promises in themselves, and showing how an ideal can be hijacked, using the Soviet Union as a case study. I hope BarneyGumble knows Orwell was left-wing. -- Natalinasmpf 20:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Orwell WAS left-wing, but (to a disputable degree) got disillusioned much like Irving Kristol, David Horowitz, or Whitaker Chambers. When a system of government concentrates power in the hands of so few, the ideal will always be hijacked. No matter how idealistic a Trotsky, there will always be a Stalin to come and hijack it. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Nice work on the chess templates btw. Barneygumble 21:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * But what? Communism doesn't concentrate power at all. Do you actually know what anarchist communism is? There are no leaders in a communist government, only citizens. There are no classes in a communist society, only people. There is no abuse of power in an anarchist communism, because it is checked by peers. No individual holds more power than the other. Oh by the way, I dislike Trotsky for his actions at Kronstadt. I am a Kropotkinist, not a Marxist. As a participant in the Spanish Civil War, he got disillusioned with perhaps war in itself, but I do not think he was ever a fan of authoritarian government. Once again, Marxist-Leninism is an evil because it is state-socialism, and is not communism at all. -- Natalinasmpf 21:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * So I wondered over here for a nice Go/Chess template chat but thought this was interesting so ..... I think part of the problem that was being pointed out by the statement "concentrating power in the hands of so few" is that a system like you describe where everyone is equal in power means that everyone is powerless to maintain such a state. A government like that is in a state of unstable equilibrium,  the result is that small groups of people consolidate their power and fight with another small groups of people until one of them consolidates enough power to corrupt the whole system and volá authoritarianism.  The contended flaw then is not with how the type of government starts it is where it leads and weather it is inevatible that it lead there.  Dalf | Talk 06:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, but the whole point is for the citizens to act in a coordinated, organised fashion: think of it as a direct democracy, but extended on an economic scale, and consensus decided ad hoc (just like a VFD is an ad hoc consensus poll) - peer pressure by means of economic and social boycott and ostracism of parasites (as opposed to violent repression) is favoured. Anarcho-communism is basically libertarian socialism on the most radical and extreme scale. Again, nothing wrong with being extreme for freedom. -- Natalinasmpf 06:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the point is how do you force the citizens to act in a coordinated, organised fashion? Or do you contend that they simply will?  My statment about it being an unstable equilibrium are on point here.  People will not act that way, if psychology and history are any indication.  More to the point even is MOST people are inclinded to act that way it only takes a few acting subtel ways (as not to be identified and stopped and sent to a gulag or something) to undermine the whole system.  Then ofcorse you have to find these enemies of the system and ... well its all down hill from there.  This is also why pure democracy is a very very dangerious thing, the tyrany of the majority should be feared, as it is extream supression of freedom for anyone not in the majority. Dalf | Talk 08:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Dalf is right. Some people always seek power. They will organize into group and use fear attacks to gain power and control the area. Peer pressure will do nothing when people are threatening to slit your throat. Barneygumble 13:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It is true, but the problem does not lie in Communism. The very same happens with any form of economic system. Rama 13:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You don't force the citizens to take a course of action, besides voluntary peer pressure. You exclude/ostracise the unwilling, who will not participate and have the right attitude, and invite the willing, who will. Then you convince the unwilling to change their minds about not cooperating and join. A communist society only functions with willing members. Anarchism - decentralised direct democracy mitigates majoritarianism by the way - by its very concern for the individual in a libertarian context (a balance between negative and positive liberty et al) - and the participants respect this out of principle. The enemies can be expelled right away, or retaliated against if they bear arms against such a society. There are no gulags, and certainly no prisons (a suitable alternative would be ostracism for anti-community behaviour, confiscation of received gifts by the community to compensate loss before ostracism occurs, and maybe if one has to, ie. in the case of murder, and eye for an eye likewise.


 * So if someone goes and rapes a woman, what do you do? If some people create a gang, and start terrorizing the neighbourhood, what do you do? Barneygumble


 * Just like you'd do normally: send the police, arrest the culprit, and reeducate him into behaving like a civilised being. There again, I can't see the connection with the economical system. Rama 13:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Consider this: if I take a group of citizens out into the desert, and cooperate with a gift economy. External transactions are impossible, so hence, it remains purely communist. This is primitive anarchism, and would be a young communist society or organization at the start, and I'm just using this as a simple explanation. Considering that as a small group, they have agreed to work together out of principle. (Complications I will deal with later). The next level is a society within a society - that is, again, internal transactions are purely gift economic, but external transactions require money, and to maintain self-sufficiency for things like new computer parts, so the society (small at this moment) gives their current existing production, whether it be agriculture or otherwise, and sells it to buy external goods as a pooled community. In a gift economic context this could work out (as one of many other different ways), the community gives a trusted individual gifts, (this is all based on perception of trust from each individual) - who, having received these gifts should, in order to remain in good standing with the rest of the community, make it up with contributions of one's own. Hence, the gifts given are sold outside, then purchased for external goods that the community needs. The net contribution is the effort taken for the individual to make the travels, while maintaining a gift economic integrity. So external communication is established. In time, the society expands in order to say, get other goods to be part of the gift economy, because it will be less costly for the community as a whole, naturally. So hence, one convinces external individuals to join such a society, with the existing status quo. They are not forced to join, but convinced to join. Those unwilling, remain unwilling - and hence wouldn't join the society in the first place. The only time that those incompatible with the system ever find themselves in the actual system is only when they actively seek to leech off it, which then I presume, we have every ethical right to ostracise.


 * And what would be the incentive for cooperation? The same reason the system started off in the first place. To maintain the principle - a sort of "bury the hatchet" - that cooperation is ultimately beneficial (ie. a sort of prisoner's dilemma) - only that trust has been ascertained in the first place. To try to exploit the system then, would simply revert it back to the previous status - hence ruining all the progress one has made to maintain it. For example, would Jimbo Wales really sell Wikipedia for billions of dollars to Encylopedia Britannica, thereby ruining the entire "free information" he himself has sweated to maintain? Even in revolution, the unwilling will simply be evicted from gained territory - for we have every right to - just as we have every right not to buy from a shop we dislike, or refrain from selling from a customer we dislike, we can refrain from giving gifts to a person not willing to cooperate with the community - and when done en masse - ostracism. Consider this - if an anarcho-communist society has expanded such that members of the civil service, government, are themselves members (secret, perhaps), then the society can simply declare it has broken away - seceded - from an existing state, and thereby seized state power - then destroyed state power (ie. to prevent the needless paying of taxes et al), is it not perfectly ethical for the government to be dissolved that way? And the free market would no longer be championed by the state, because the state no longer exists. The unwilling would be left in a remnant of a country with most of the government having broken away, and there would be no ethical problems. -- Natalinasmpf 01:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I felt compelled to chime in here as well. As a economic system, communism (and all forms thereof) is deeply, deeply flawed for several important reasons. Just some of its fundemental flaws are - (1) the lack of any kind of incentive mechanism to encourage effeciency or improvement (2) Hidden and differently valued resources which inherently cannot be equally distributed (3) The inability of supply to meet demand which leads to massive over and underproduction. &rarr;Raul654 06:28, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Uh...communism champions the use of a gift economy, not a centrally planned economy, which is in fact an element of Bolshevik state socialism. Incentive therefore exists in order to prove oneself to the community - effectively it's more flexible and fluid, and based of perception of character, not a requirement of existing material wealth (to gain more material wealth), which leads to things like the poverty cycle and economic stagnation. Differently valued resources will have equivalents with more common resources - more of them - and contributions of a valuable resource will be perceived as more diligent than say...a gift of sand. The obligation to fulfill the needs of the society (demand), rather than slacking for the easy contributions (excess supply) accounts for the supply/demand problem. Why undergo all of this anyway? It's instrumental I believe to the entire concept of libertarianism and anarchism. That is my take on it. -- Natalinasmpf 06:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Erm, you cannot have a gift economy in a situation with limited resources. It works great with Linux and Wikipedia where the end product is infinite (you can copy linux all you want). On the other hand, there's only so many mansions in the world. Everyone wants one, and there isn't enough to go around. In such a situation, what is to say who gets a mansion and who doesn't? Furthermore, if everyone recieves the same remuneration, how do you determine who gets the unpleasant jobs that nobody wants (like trashman) and who gets the really cushy jobs (like CEO)? Altriusm is great, but it's not going to keep people's noses to the grindstone. &rarr;Raul654 06:40, July 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * In such a situation, the mansion is shared. Which is an obvious solution. Individuals can effectively hold whatever housing they want, but then it has to be made up with a large contribution, which isn't required to first hold the housing, but generally taking say, a large mansion without the appropriate contribution back results in expulsion or ostracism. It's exactly because the mansions need to be divided (until all the citizens are up to the status quo before progress of any one individual above the others, considering all are contributors and the non-contributors ostracised), and the unpleasant jobs divided among more people and the pleasant jobs (which by the way, is not seen as a valuable "contribution" if everyone wants to hold it) that a gift economy works. Incentive to get unpleasant jobs isn't doled out by the way, it is spontanteous. The transcendent incentive is that it improves the community (improving yourself in the long run) - and the short-term incentive is that the garbage disposers are seen as valuable contributions since little people want to do it. This is also adaptive - eventually if garbage disposal by humans is redundant, because say, it is mechanized, then it is so common (ie. if no human does it, it is still done automatically by machines) - it works out flexibly to say, provide incentive for valuable effort, but at the same time putting pressure on improvement (in order to make a better contribution). In this way, for example, education can be seen as working for the potential to contribute, which itself will be well supported by other members of the community. The poverty cycle where people remain poor because poverty => lack of education => poverty (and thus vicious cycle) becomes abolished. That is a rough explanation, I have a more finesse way of explaining the mechanics, but I assure you, it works with human nature. -- Natalinasmpf 07:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Also -  Differently valued resources will have equivalents with more common resources - and who determines the exchange rates? Don't laugh, this is *extremely important* - the fundemental difference between a barter economy and capitalism is that money gives things relative value. If you do away with money, you almost-completely lose the ability to equate different goods to each other. &rarr;Raul654 06:46, July 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * No, the concept of requiring existing material wealth to set "prices" for exchange is flawed because such a system is rigid. No individual determines the exchange rate. Each individual judges one another's contributions (when they give to each other) for themselves. Ostracism works by withdrawing gifts from a person who refuses to contribute to correspond to the gifts he receives (in this case, the mansion, etc. or the rare good). Because it is based on perception of character, rather by existing material wealth, this is far more flexible, as well as preventing hoarding of power. -- Natalinasmpf 07:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * No idea how I got here, but it's an interesting discussion and this made me smile: "communism is deeply flawed" because of "the lack of any kind of incentive mechanism to encourage effeciency or improvement." I guess that's why wikipedia just isn't growing or improving: there are no incentives for individuals to contribute to the project of a community. David Sneek 19:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Erm, you're misunderstanding the point. In communism, there's no way to reward people for working overtime (for example), or to invent some gadget that's going to change the world; or for a factory to retool to produce a better widget, 'etc. &rarr;Raul654 19:23, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * I just noticed we have a great article on the topic - Criticisms of socialism which does a good job of laying out many of the problems I have alluded to. Most notably, in response to what Natalina was saying earlier about peer pressure being used to tow the communist line -- Some socialists argue for a society where high peer pressure prevents laziness. Critics note that peer pressure might be effective in a small group with permanent interaction and where everybody knows each other, like among hunter-gatherers, but see no evidence that it works well in larger, more complex societies with larger and constantly changing groups. &rarr;Raul654 19:26, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not misunderstanding the point, but disagreeing with the assumptions behind it. Rewards are not the only reason to do something, even if the ideology of our societies wants us to believe that. There are many reasons for people to work overtime, to use your example: because they are convinced their work is important, because it serves the common good, because it's fun, satisfies their curiosity, etc. David Sneek 13:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Mind you, it's the free market itself that discourages permanent interaction and reduces relationships to a purely monetary one. Peer pressure only needs to occur in the kind of style where say, a person regularly interacts with say, 150 neighbours (vendors, neighbours, colleagues, etc.) - and this could work fairly well in a city - which is good as well because those will regularly give gifts. However, by proxy - this extends to the entire population, who do not regularly interact, who can continue to pass "gifts" by proxy, and exert a sort of peer pressure by proxy as well, and hence give incentive for the person to give gifts or receive from strangers he or she has never met - because there are bound to be people who, knows them both, or knows one, and knows a person who knows the other. Giving then, to that stranger, is recognised as a contribution by the immediate surroundings, and the stranger might very well not ever give back - but precisely because the society is complex, the reciprocity arrives by proxy. -- Natalinasmpf 01:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * This sempiternal story about Communism not giving incitations to work has always sank me in the deepest confusion: for a start, people have hobbies, which are not rewarded, yet usually drain the better part of their motivations. Also most of us are engineers; we've all read Dilbert, have we not ? Rama 12:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Quit Reverting without Discussion
Quit reverting the Human rights in the United States page without any discussion. It's completely unprofessional. Wikipedia is not Pravda. Barneygumble 21:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

It was already discusssed. You haven't brought up any new reasons yet. -- Natalinasmpf 21:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes I have and you haven't commented. See here :. The 1948 UN delaration on human rights defines a fair list of what constitutes human rights. Read the discussion. Barneygumble 16:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Fidel Castro
Hi there, I noticed that you've done some editing on Fidel Castro and I thought I'd try and draw your attention to the article in the hope of getting some balance in there. At the moment, it's become something of a playground for right-wing editors, with a variety of sources being added from anti-Castro exile groups and the like. I have no problem with these sources being added in the criticisms section, but they're being added to the intro and it's making the article look bad. Thanks illWill 23:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!
Nothing really here, just wanted to pay homage to someone whose thoughts were and will be very inspiring to me. :) Valhallia 04:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you also!
As a long time reader of both wiki and HG, I'd just like to say thanks for boosting the average IQ of both sites. Mike Atkinson 05:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Glad to meet you
I'm glad to know someone who seems to share so many interests with me, such as free software, science, game of go, etc. I know relatively little about politics, so I cannot comment on that :) R6144 09:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Go-Template for german go-Wikibook
I'am from germany. My Question is, why the pictures for the template are not in the commons? Is there a reason? (de:Benutzer:kolossos80.185.51.72 20:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC))

Communism
Sorry, my "rv vandalism" was aimed at removing the same "COMMIES ARE BAD" edit that you had already reverted. Through some glitch in the database, I didn't see your reversion (even though it was well before edit). The system seems a bit overwhelmed again. -- Mwanner 21:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

NUS
You probably mean my edits on NUS. Thank you for your compliments. :) It's now my turn now.  You write remarkably well for a 15-year-old. Mandel 19:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Natalina!
Just to say U should contribute some of your stuffs at [] Sgwiki too. it's fair that way to let talent stay in S'pore! 165.21.154.108 21:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Chess tournament - reply
"I think we are scheduled to play each other. Shall we start arrangements immediately? :-) -- "Natalinasmpf 14:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, you take white. I get black.  I'm sorry that I've been pre-occupied with other things in my life.  I will be busy next couple of days, but keep nagging me if necessary.  H Padleckas 04:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Color AfD's
Hi. The mass of colors we voted on before has been undeleted and relisted as individual AfD's. Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 01:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Which school?
Greetings. I can't help being put to shame after reading through your vast wealth of contributions, the surface of which I've barely scratched yet. You're doing a lot to help put right the conception that SG teens do nothing but chase after Taiwanese idols and listen to Linkin Park (a conception that is, sadly, very true). That said, as a fellow Singaporean the same age as you, may I ask which of our esteemed local schools produced such a precocious talent as yourself? Trivial I know, but please satisfy my curiosity. Thanks. Fooby

I go to Fairfield Sec. ;-) -- Natalinasmpf 20:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I see. ^_^ Got linked here by looking at your edits on the Dunman High page. Keep up the good work - my poor school needs it. :P Fooby

RE: National Day
It was national day in China. -- Миборовский U 00:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Move 4 made in DE Game 7
I've made move 4 in chess tournament DE Game 7. Sorry about the move 4 delay. One of my relatives had emergency surgery this week and we were pre-occupied. H Padleckas 22:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I hope she's well. -- Natalinasmpf 22:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Eh.
Thanks!

photosynthesis
I don't agree with your interpretation of hydrogen and electrons. The electrons are from water. You mention hydrogen gas as if it's coming from the atmosphere?? What you have effectively written is H2 to H+ + 2e-. Is that what you are trying to say because that does not make sense to me. May be I am misinterpreting what you are trying to write? David D. (Talk) 00:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

The hydrogen is from the water. The introduction doesn't mention it. It explains it as though oxygen was the only byproduct from splitting up water, or that energy is derived from it (when in fact it costs energy to break it down). -- Natalinasmpf 10:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Copyright images?
Just noticed you removed the images in Old Supreme Court Building and Supreme Court, Singapore. They are copyrighted? Not too sure, although I know the user who uploaded the pictures uploaded several others copyrighted images too.--Huaiwei 09:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

They don't have a license (ie. PD, GFDL, etc.), so I'm rather suspicious of them. -- Natalinasmpf 10:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok maybe we just let them float around for the time being. Considering they include detailed lists of photo specs, I suppose we might wish to give him the benefit of the doubt...for now?--Huaiwei 10:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

But they seem to be included in most uploaded images by default now, the photo specs doesn't seem to include any distinct info in them. Consider my photo, which i never entered any photo specs, but they appear anyway. -- Natalinasmpf 10:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't let the vandals get to you
RE: Relax; life is too short to let the vandals get to you. Hall Monitor 19:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Chess Tournament 1/DE/Game 7
Have you lost interest in our game: Chess championship/Tournament 1/Double-Elimination/Game 7? It's been at least 3 days since my last move. I noticed you've made about 30 Wikipedia edits in the meantime, including several yesterday. My relative is gradually improving after surgery. H Padleckas 16:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * By the way, I saved your WikiChess Game 4 (SC 6) for you with my last 2 moves for black. I know you were playing black before in that game and black was down a couple material points.  If you look, they will be gained back in a couple moves from now.  :-)  H Padleckas 08:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Just reminding you, Natalinasmpf, it's your turn to make a move in the Chess championship/Tournament 1/Double-Elimination/Game 7. H Padleckas 15:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Rock Paper Scissors
From a main page image's talk page:

I've got an idea! Let's play rock paper scissors! -- Natalinasmpf 05:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Can I play? – TTD [[Image:Thetorpedodogwiki.png|16px|Mocha!]] Bark! (pawprints) 22:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Rewriting copyvios
Hi there. Can I just remind you that, when rewriting a copyvio article, it is helpful to do so on the /Temp page as indicated in the copyvio tag. Otherwise the admin clearing out the morass that is CP has to filter through the history working out which revisions to ditch. Thanks! -Splash talk 22:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Aetherometry
My apologies for the interwiki linking accusation. I should have looked more closely. --Calton | Talk 02:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Natalinasmpf, I'd simply like to thank you for your overture of peace in the Aetherometry article. Pgio 12:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Noted as well, TTLightningRod 13:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Interview with LifeStyle
Hi Natalinasmpf, I'm Mun San from The Straits Times and we're planning a story on Singapore Wikipedians for this Sunday's LifeStyle. Would love to talk to you. Can you drop me a line at munsan@sph.com.sg or call me at 63195368? Thanks!


 * You're famous. Bask in the glory. Don't say anything seditious, though... I know I didn't when they interviewed me.
 * -- Миборовский U 06:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm honestly unsure how to react. I hope it's possible to express my views while remaning anonymous. Because I'm not ready for mortification quite yet. -- Natalinasmpf 10:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe this SPH thing is a ploy to expose all of us, unlikely but possible. Afterall, the Demolition Man is now terminated and some *folks* are having some spare time. It is therefore wise that a few of us remain anonymous and hopefully there will be some survivors when they start the purging to annihilate our community. --Vsion 19:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Not really, unlike the blogolitics I believe it may be good publicity to attract more people to join us in the editing fun! :) Seriously, we need a lot of help in improvement of Singapore-related articles. - Mailer Diablo 20:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Just do an online interview. Remember that if the Gestapo could reach you, they already would have. Or, get another person who is out of reach of the said organization to be your spokesperson.
 * -- Миборовский U 00:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

G6P dehydrogenase deficient?
Must have been real unlucky to have G6P dehydrogenase deficiency as a girl... What is the chances of that happening? Dad has to be expressing the trait and mom has to be a carrier (or also expressing the trait, in which case the kid is pretty much screwed... No offense.) So, do you know the ratio of males to females with the disease?

-- Миборовский U 06:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject General Audience
Hiya. I'd like to invite you to join WikiProject General Audience, which is working toward making all articles accessible. Currently Make technical articles accessible is fairly controversial (see the talk page and the village pump discussion); I think merging Special relativity for beginners with Special relativity will be contentious and difficult to carry out well. The current situation is a compromise, but in my opinion it's better than the alternatives now available to us. &#8227;&#5339;&#5505;  [ &#5200; ] 22:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you!
Dear Natalinasmpf: actually the topic is really simple -- "Describe how the proton-motive force is set up and how interfering with the proton-motive force was the focus of an early unsuccessful diet pill.", and we're required to do a short presentation on it. No fancy topics like the endosymbiotic theory or how eukaryotes evolved -- too much for a 5-minute presentation! ;-) 129.97.252.63 05:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Gift economy
I hope it is clear that my objection at Talk:Gift economy was to User:Johnleemk using it as a forum to discuss your views, not to your responding. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Some Help With Wiki
Hey Nat. It's Moff. I'm currently working on a Wikipedia entry for my game, but I have no idea how to do most of the formatting and visual stuff. Could you email me or contact me on MSN/AIM? I would really appreciate it.

RE: The CCP
Thanks for the message. Interesting proposition. We should talk about this more on MSN or through email, perhaps?

PS. Don't sweat it about the RfA, got passed anyway. But thanks for the help.


 * -- Миборовский U 02:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, I was thinking if it was public, that would be the whole point of organising a front because it would be advertising in the process. ;-) -- Natalinasmpf 02:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, it's never a good idea to act before you're ready... there probably needs to be a "cabal" stage when at least some basic stuff have to be discussed. :) -- Миборовский U 02:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Communism revert
Hi Natalinasmpf. I know how much vandalism this page gets, but please don't be too quick to revert anon edits that are not obvious nonsense. In this edit a user tried to add a mention of the Zimmerwald Conference, which was an important staging post in the split between social democracy and the emerging Communist movement, and had also changed the dubious description 'moderate' to the rather more useful and less POV (I think) social democracy. The latter change should certainly be incorporated, and I have edited to do so. Even if the Zimmerwald bit was a bit clumsy, this was a bona fide edit from an anon with some good edits, so I don't think reversion was appropriate. Regards, Mattley 14:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)