Talk:Nathania

I would like to create a logo with the same font that's used in  for, but I'm not sure what it is. At some point I also want to change the background color of the flag to blue, my favorite color (I haven't decided which shade of blue yet; perhaps #0000AA, or maybe whatever is halfway between #0000AA and #55FFFF, or maybe something entirely different), and put the letter "N" as a white foreground. However, then I would need to color the flagpole as well. Leucosticte (talk) 07:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit war
If people have concerns about the page, it would be appropriate to discuss, in accordance with the BRD cycle. Otherwise, I'm going to wait a week and then revert you again, because you haven't made any arguments in support of your changes. Leucosticte (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You are an evil person and you only have three options: Kill yourself, find God or find a psychiatrist. I am thinking of making a profile here and exposing myself, just to make sure you are not free to spread your terminology about childmolesting. --77.244.254.227 00:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "I am thinking of making a profile here and exposing myself" Do it. Suicide is only an option for those who are emotionally ready. Maybe you'll be able to help push me to that point; probably nothing will suffice anytime soon, though. If what I've already experienced hasn't been enough, then probably what you have to say won't make the difference either, especially now that many of the former stressors and dysphoria-inducing factors have been removed from my life. One of the first essays ever posted to SuicideWiki noted that if pentobarbital were more readily available, then we'd probably see more suicides, especially among prisoners.


 * It's antiliberals such as yourself who did everything you could to get statutes and regulations passed that would make suicide more difficult, risky and physically painful. (In spite of it all, I eventually acquired some pentobarbital and domperidone, but by then the desire had passed.) Therefore, you may be partly to blame that people such as me are still around. It's well-known that a lot of minor-attracted persons have suicidal feelings, and probably the same applies to their more ardent sympathizers, because they don't fit into society either. Leucosticte (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You are right, there is nothing better then suicide, take me for example, I would love to die in battle one day. But you, you know you are evil and that the world hates you, that is why you obsess over suicide. But it is so easy, so easy, just do it and all suffering will be gone, you will finaly be free. Kill yourself - SATAN DEMANDS IT OF YOU! --37.221.162.226 00:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You can make an attempt on my life if you care that much about it. However, the will to live will surely make me do what I can to stop you. Instinct sometimes overrides reason. Or maybe I should say that it sometimes directs reason. There are a lot of good arguments for suicide, and it's definitely an effective way to minimize suffering, but not every person has it in him to do it. Leucosticte (talk) 00:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What? Are you afraid, afraid of me? I promise, I will give you anything you desire - freedom, knowledge, sex - with children! Just off yourself and all will be alright, you will be with friends, I promise you. --SATAN
 * I also demand 72 comely virginal fat chicks. But wait, you're talking about eternal life in some paradise, right? Even Hell might get old after awhile. That's the problem with the afterlife in general; all the ones I've heard described have seemed to have limited possibilities that would eventually be exhausted.


 * I'll have to think about it. Leave me your card and maybe I'll call you. Are you getting paid a commission for each soul, by the way? That probably explains these high-pressure sales tactics. Leucosticte (talk) 00:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you are right, trolling wikiindex with this pedo and satanshit isn't funny anymore. Do you want the three of use to infiltrate rationalwiki, or the German Wikipedia again?
 * You gotta go someplace where you can get a reaction out of people. For best results, create your own wiki, and then you'll attract outraged people who will come to you, rather than the other way around. But you probably already did that, and now are just trying to extend your reach.


 * Hmm, I dunno. You're really bored, huh? Don't you have some other passions that interest you, besides trolling? Or maybe you're just procrastinating, because those other pursuits take a lot of work, and trolling is easier and a source of quick lulz. Yeah, either RationalWiki or the German Wikipedia sound good. But maybe you're just trying to leave and come back so you can earn a quick drama point. Leucosticte (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Look, it's over, Jeff, Angeline and me are going at it on the DuWik, there all asleep now, skype me if you want in, or not Dutchboy, with your "shrekliches Deutsch"
 * Peace out. Leucosticte (talk) 01:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Strength of nations
Not that it matters, but a shot across the bow may have been an IP edit to this page that changed the year for Strength of Nations, the video game, from 1988 to 1987. Subtle vandalism. Open proxy editing. --Abd (talk) 23:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There were multiple versions of the game, so who knows what the most recent one was. But yeah, I did suspect that of being subtle vandalism when it happened. The earliest year that the game existed should probably be used. Leucosticte (talk) 08:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the Wikipedia article says 1988. Must be so, right? ? Of course, the Wikipedia article has no references, only wikilinks. However, Israel del Rio is not hard to find. Maybe he knows. However, the web evidence is quite strong. Many references to 1988. Googling ["strength of nations" 1987 "Israel del Rio"] came up with 5 hits, the first of which is, of course, this WikiIndex article. Hey, must be so!
 * All those hits, other than WikiIndex, support 1988. While it's possible that the IP simply made a mistake, it's more likely you were pranked. And it worked. You weren't sure, so you left it, and the page was protected into the Wrong Version. Page protection was only needed because of edits by Sophie Wilder, who, of course, doesn't give a fig about accuracy here. Otherwise it could easily have been semiprotected. I'll ask for that. Frankly, the page could use more clean-up. --Abd (talk) 12:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia article was based off one of the more recent versions of Strength of Nations. However, that date came from the title screen, I think. I doubt that del Rio would have bothered to update that, since changing an image would have been harder than just changing a in a program. Yeah, del Rio is probably around; and usually I've found that game developers are more than willing to talk about their projects. Leucosticte (talk) 13:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is possible that he wrote the game intending to release in 1987, but wasn't ready by then, so postponed release until 1988, but you are correct, if it was coded as an image, it would have been more trouble to fix. I found del Rio's email address, but, frankly, there is not enough necessity here to justify pinging him. There is zero claim out there for a release date of 1987 other than this article, (and it is release date that would matter, if any of this mattered at all, and it doesn't). If you know that 1987 was in the title screen of the first, or early versions, hey, great find, of interest if anyone wants to play a game of trivial pursuit. "What early video game was released in 1988, but the early screens said 1987?" But it is of no relevance to the WikiIndex listing of Nathania. "The 1980s video game ..." Personally, I'd just go for 1988, and if it's wrong, so what? Public trust in WikiIndex will collapse? --Abd (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we need to get 's successor, whoever that might be, to narrate this high-stakes scenario for our viewers, as it's getting pretty serious. "In a wiki where vandals have run wild..." Leucosticte (talk) 14:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict with above) This is likely definitive: cd.textfiles.com/softkeyep/PROGRAMS/DOSGAMES/.../NATION.DOC‎ (find the actual file through the googlelink I gave, but with "1988"). The earliest copyright date is January 1, 1988. That's version 0, which may never have been released. If it was, he just could have blown his copyright by claiming a 1988 year instead of 1987, under the old law, anyway. I read that date as meaning he was working on the game, and put a copyright date into it of January 1, coming up, because he knew he would not release until then or later. There is no sign that anyone but maybe him knew about the game in 1987. There are 1,640 results supporting 1988, this one very explicit, compared to one supporting 1987, this one created by the open proxy vandal. Whaddaya think, we should AGF? "1988, but according to Special:Contributions/77.109.141.138, an open proxy, before before the BON turned into a clear vandal, it's 1987." Whaddaya think, this is excessive detail? Ah, but it's Truth! If it's Truth, it MUST be included, that's article one in the Inclusionist Manifesto, right? --Abd (talk) 13:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tag removed
I removed the speedy deletion tag, because Nathania has been a notable wiki, as Googling "Nathania.org" will show. The issue of hosting controversial wikis, blikis, and "vanity wikis" is one that should be carefully considered by the community. Excluding these would be a radical departure from prior practice. There are legitimate issues to be considered. In this case, the owner of a wiki has requested deletion, which is also something to be carefully considered. This listing caused enormous disruption, as WikiIndex users, including administrators, defended it against outside attack. Now, in a fit of pique, the owner requests deletion. On Wikiversity, such a request was made by a former administrator, about his content. In spite of a strong tradition of honoring author requests, the request for deletion was rejected. Only if there is no objection are such requests routinely granted. There could be other bases for deleting the page, but they have not been asserted.

To Nathan, this comment: you do not get to create enormous disruption, directly and indirectly, and mostly provocatively, then casually obtain deletion and thus a covering up of what happened. If you actually want to move on, say so. If you wish to repudiate the ideas you promoted -- or appeared to promote -- say so. Request support. But continuing in isolation, just making whatever fuss appears to you as important on a day, putting up wikis, taking them down, putting them up again, taking them down again, all based on short-term reactions, and arguing ad nauseum, no. You have wasted a great deal of wiki user time. Stop it. --Abd (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The page is obviously the kind of stuff that Koavf was complaining about as being part of a pattern of self-promotion and spam.


 * Not to mention, someone wrote in an official court document, regarding Nathania, "Friend and I discovered Nathan had started an online journal, detailing our relationship. In this journal, he acknowledges that I have asked him multiple times to stop contacting me, but states that I am still 'bound to him because of the marriage contract' and that he 'wants to make sure I cannot shut him out, no matter how hard I try.' He states he will hire a private investigator to find me, and that he plans on writing me more letters, in order to get me to come back to him. Because I deleted all online accounts to avoid him, this hate blog is the first result on Google when searching my name." Magistrate Jayne Candea-Ramsey wrote, "The Court finds that it has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter; that Larson, Nathan Daniel (Restrained Person) constitutes a credible threat, that an imminent danger exists to the life and health of the Protected Persons named in this action, and sufficient cause exists for the issuance of a Civil Protection Order." Thus, the listing of Nathania would probably be considered prohibited content under doxing grounds too. Leucosticte (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)