User talk:NatGertler/Archive 2

DOMA "finally" wording issue.
I took a shot at rewriting that based on a quote from the letter from the DOJ to Speaker Holder, if you don't like it, feel free to revert, it's all good. --joe deckertalk to me 18:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Figs... :)
Let me know if you ever develop a hankering for shrimp, if you check the appropriate web site you'll see a have a COI on that topic. ;-) --joe deckertalk to me 05:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah! I had not realized that I was dealing with a guy of such import. (But really, if God did not hate shrimp, he would not have given them that insulting name...) --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's so clear when you say it that way, you're right! I may have to steal that sometime. :p   --joe deckertalk to me 06:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

SSM/ 'Pope-quote'
Hi Nat, I found out that you reverted my edit on the SSM page, see. I have to be honest; irreligious person, table for one, that's me. :) So could you please explain to me what you meant with the diferrence between the is and IS? I mean, if it's no trouble. Anyhow, I changed it again, my latest edit can be seen here. Is this a better way of describing it? It seems more neutral this way, but I'm all open to input. The reason that I'd like to see a referrence made about the Catholic church, is because someone reckoned it strange that the 'Pope-quote' was at the top of the page, for he is just one religious leader. I replied by saying that the link isn't that strange, for the Netherlands has an Archdiocese, and some 4 million Catholics, so the Vatican felt that it was also their concern, and simply were the first 'big religion' to respond to it. Anyhow, if you still feel my latest edit is not accurate, please, edit it into something that is! :) Best regards, Robster1983 (talk) 09:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The Netherlands has an archdiocese within it, but that no more makes it an archdiocese than having a McDonalds in the mall makes the whole all a McDonalds. You are not your pancreas. It's hard to read much into the church having a regional office in the country, and in this case it's not even a regional office that covers the whole country. An Archdiocese is not a rare thing which says something special about a country; the US alone has 35. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks regarding Schulz vs. Shulz
Major typo on my part in correcting that, hope that my claim that I know how to spell his name bears water. :) A pleasure to correct my error, and thank you for contacting me regarding it! I'd argue for your ability to edit pages despite the potential for conflict, but appreciate your approach and editing philosophy.  Student Driver (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state
Hi NatGertler, I just wanted to get your help on the Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state article. I'm working on a replacement article in my sandbox here - User:NYyankees51/marriage/new. The current article is not very helpful and I'm trying to make a comprehensive state-by-state list. I made a table listing all the states prohibiting gay marriage by voter referendum. I'm not very good at tables so if you know how to work with them to make it look better, that would be great, and any help you can provide to the sandbox article would be great as well. Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Fred Karger
My since apologies. I have made the appropriate corrections in the article. I also apologize for my comment, and my failure to pay attention to the appropriate section. Thank you so much for pointing out my mistake, and for being so civil. --Jo (talk) 04:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your sincere and responsible apology. We're good. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Mr Gertler. I have read about you, and I see that you are involved in the medial industry. If you don't mind, may I please ask you a question about the media industry? I am interested in that business, and I just had a question. Thank you so much. --Jo (talk) 04:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

History of LGBT rights opposition
The first link is about "Buy viagra canada"??? And the article on the SPLC-Website clearly states, that homosexuals were persecuted, but that there was NOT a death penalty for homosexuality. Kreuzkümmel (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Response at Talk:LGBT rights opposition, since that's part of the article discussion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Historic Boystown Designation
hello, my name is Nat as well and the reason my username is blockpartyweho is not because i AM larry block, its because i do all of the web design for historic boystown. i have NO affiliation with block party or the brand. i am just a web designer for the good of the community. i chose the name blockpartyweho b/c boystown and historicboystown was taken, so i chose the closest thing to this particular cause. i made NO money from this project...i did it for the goodness of a community movement.

the reason larry block's name appears so often in my article is not because i am "promoting" him but because HE is the ONLY person who began this movement in weho...HE spoke up at a city council meeting, HE organized a sponsorship committee between MANY local businesses (so it's not just block party) its also, micky's club, club eleven, yogurt stop, etc. MANY businesses are for the designation of historic boystown but HE is the one who originated the movement and discussed it at city hall. so just as you would say MLK was an advocate for the civil rights movement...larry block is an advocate for the designation for historic boystown in weho. he just wants the city to recognize a place where MANY call home and feel accepted for whoever they are, myself included. so yes, i know larry block through designing his website but i do not intend to "promote" him or his store...i intended to promote historic boystown and yes he is a HUGE part of that so his name will have to be mentioned. it didnt just come up in a city hall meeting one day. i was at the actual meeting where he first spoke of it and then i talked afterward with him and volunteered my services of designing the website.

i guess i dont understand the big deal about having a couple of paragraphs on a universal website...what's the harm here? i am not linking his business page nor a did i even mention the name of it. i said "a local store owner" this is not for promotional purposes, it is to designate boystown for individuals who want a place to call their own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blockpartyweho (talk • contribs) 18:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Double marriage?
Is there such a thing as a marriage which involves two men marrying two women? sort of like a team marriage in a way that 4 people are in one marriage. Does such a thing exist? Its sort of like an open marriage, except limited to four people. Pass a Method  talk  20:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know of any form of marriage that is specifically 4 people, but I'm not an expert in experimental or alternative forms of marriage. What you should be looking toward is not open marriage - marriage which does not exclude outside sexual activity - but group marriage, where more than two people are in the marriage itself. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that link Pass a Method   talk  05:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

2011 end times prediction
Thanks for the kind words. You've been doing good stuff yourself, particularly staying on top of the Talk page. We are going to have our hands full with that article over the next week or so; did you see it got over 50,000 hits yesterday? (85,000 today) Thank goodness it's been semi-protected! Unfortunately, I will be offline on Saturday/Sunday when the Great Anticlimax occurs, so I won't be able to help create the Aftermath section. --MelanieN (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations!
You really have been doing some great editing recently on the 2011 end times malarkey. Carry on keeping it all together tomorrow, It's already the 21st (GMT) here in London :) Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and you've been doing some useful edits yourself. Unfortunately, I'm not sure I'll be able to take the time needed to ride on this page the way that it needs over the weekend. I have a life, alas. But I hope that any editors that remain earthbound at the time will chip in effort! --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

NAFAS
Hi Nat

Thanks for the warning note.

If the existing article on NAFAS had come up when I searched for it, I would not have wasted my time writing another. There must be something wrong with the search engine. There was not the slightest trace of any article on NAFAS when I tried to search for it. Absolutely zero. The only probelm now is that I have linked a couple of articles to the NAFAS article I created. And I will take a look at the other NAFAS article to see if there is material I can salvage from the stub I created last night. Best wishes --  Robert of Ramsor (talk) 09:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I now see what I've done - confused Arranging and Arrangement. Which the search engine still didn't warn me about when I looked at other articles on Wiki with references to NAFAS.  For exxample, the one on Judith Blacklock, editor of The FLower Arranger Magazine.  Not sure what went wrong, but my typo didn't help.  --  Robert of Ramsor (talk) 09:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Usergate Mail Server
just to let you know I removed your prod tag on Usergate Mail Server because the author of the article had already disputed a prod attempt. I put it up for AfD - Articles for deletion/Usergate Mail Server Kevin (talk) 05:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Center for American Values
NatGertler... I am VERY new to the wikipedia group, as far as contributing with actual information. I have donated several hundred dollars over the course of the last few years and continue to support by purchasing database updates with my iOS devices. I understand the importance of keeping the Wikipedia free of liter. One thing I am concerned about is that you don't realize that I actually wrote the content you deleted. I built the site that it originated from and am the acting CTO of the very organization it was generated for. On direct request of Medal of Honor recipient, Drew Dix, that article was prepared and delivered for the Congressional Medal of Honor Society and the Center for American Values. He is the co-founder of the non profit organization the Center for American Values. Given that the article content was in it's infancy, and that I don't have an offline editor of sorts to prepare my submission, I am perplexed and concerned at the rapid rate and condescending removal of it.

I would say that I changed a lot of verbiage that seemed bias from the original content on the website. It was drained of the American Superiority complex that oozed from the original content I posted on the CAV's original website.

Please... I beg of you... maybe a discussion prior to instant death of content would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwilliam13 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Cassone
No idea if I am in the right place - can't find any other means of contacting you. Why do you want to remove the entry on Cassone: The International Online Magazine of Art and Art Booka? Wikipedia carries a long list of art magazines and most have their own entry - why not this one? A recent google search on the term 'Cassone' put it fourth item down on the first page. It is the first purely online art magazine ever launched in Britain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artemisia24 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

ctypes = why axe it?
Hi,

Why do you wish to delete the Ctypes page? I see it refers to two different things, what's wrong about it?

Thanks Bazuz (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * As it says in WP:D, "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous—when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia articles" Only one of the two items you disambiguate is covered by a Wikipedia article, hence no need for a disambiguation page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Laila Takla
Thanks for giving the article on Laila Takla a nice tidy up :) Jolly good! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel De Mol (talk • contribs) 02:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Your comment at Opponents of SSM
Perhaps I'm being obtuse, but what did you mean in your last comment here? Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the editing history and tendencies, I would not be surprised to find Lionelt objecting that something you added used the fringe of the anti-SSM crowd to paint the whole crowd negatively (not saying he would be right, just saying it wouldn't be surprising). To see you trying to protect the rep of the anti-SSM crowd from Lionel's edit (you do realize it was he who added the gallery, don't you?) is more unexpected. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw that he'd added photo 1, but didn't realize he'd added the others less recently. Anyway, I think all three photos depict people who are loopy, but that's my opinion - there would seem to be an issue of undue weight with two of the three photos being what they were, but as you point out, the fringe presumably doesn't think it's the fringe, so let's wait to hear from other editors. (Also, as I may have forgot to mention, MOS discourages unnecessary galleries - illustrations should be interspersed throughout the article.) Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * He added the entire gallery to the page in this edit. And note that my counter to your objections was merely on the "fringe" part of "lunatic fringe"; on the other part, no comment. :) --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Island Monkey talk the talk 15:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikinic
Hello! The Los Angeles Wikinic is fast approaching, and we need intrepid volunteers to bring supplies and whatnot. I've posted a little info and a sign-up sheet at Meetup/LA/4 so please let me confirm your attendance and sign up to bring something. Thanks!  howcheng  {chat} 23:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Why the article was deleted
You said: This page is made up almost entirely of the material from http://www.excelwithbusiness.com/Tests.aspx and http://www.excelwithbusiness.com/Tests/WhatistheExcelIQscore.aspx --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC) I am the copyright holderVinitpatel87

While I have no reason to disbelieve you, our procedures allow anyone to register with that name (plus, I do not see a notice identifying you as the copyright holder.)

Not to worry, this happens all the time, and there is a procedure to ensure that you are who you say you are and you have the authority to license the material for use by Wikipedia.

See Donating copyrighted materials

I have deleted the article, but there is no problem reproducing it, if proper permission is received (this is not an opinion on whether the article is otherwise acceptable). -- SPhilbrick  T  15:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You done gots things backwardsified! I'm the guy who called for the deletion, not the author of the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec):oops, my bad, this isn't directed at you. But I see the original editor has made some changes, so it's now not so clear; I'll let you think through the notability issues.-- SPhilbrick  T  15:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Somebody else beat me to it. Life moves pretty fast! --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

My share
Re this: I reverted once. Shouldn't I get a cut of the proceeds? Rivertorch (talk) 05:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't leave my name in the comment; we'll leave it up to each problem editor to figure out who "me" is for them - it might be you! --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

God Hates Figs
I'm sorry, but this "article" still completely fails the threshold of WP:NOTABILITY. If you continue to bring it back, it will go to WP:AFD, and you might also find your user account BANNED as well. WTF? (talk) 02:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Responded to poster here.


 * Fine. Have it your way then. Nommed for deletion. WTF? (talk) 04:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I do recognize the difference between a "newbie" and a "vandal", and can smell a page that really isn't encyclopedic quite well. I do try to help bonafide newbies in a friendly manner; but I still have a low tolerance for vandals.

I'm going to disagree that God hates figs is well-sourced -- while some of the sources are notable, most are either single sentence descriptions with a photo, or descriptions of the counter-protests that mention your poster in a sentence or two, so they really can't be said to back up the whole God hates figs argument. I will give it to you that the article is formatted and wikified, but then again, it's quite easy to polish a turd,. . . This whole thing would be best summarized if we could (a) find a free image of it, upload it, and attach it to the WBC article, and (b) summarize what you have in 1-2 sentences in the counter protests section, preferably using the NBC and Deseret News articles you've already provided. That would be a much better and more efficient use of space than a separate vanity article on the topic. WTF? (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * 'Well, I do recognize the difference between a "newbie" and a "vandal"' - I have trouble believing that, given that in this case, you didn't notice the difference between an editor with considerably more experience than you and a vandal. You are in a variety of ways coming across as someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. I frankly recommend that you go and review some of the key guidelines and policies of Wikipedia, including WP:RS, WP:3RR, and WP:CIV. You also seem to be spending a fair amount of effort addressing what you assume rather than what is actually there (and this note where you say you're going to disagree that the article was "well-sourced" when all I said was that it was "sourced" is an example; describing this as a "vanity article" makes it look like you believe I had something to do with God hates figs beyond writing a Wikipedia article on it, which is not the case.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

A dollar

 * Many thanks. I shall strive to spend it wisely. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

New article help
I've been editing for a while, but am now building a new article. The subject is an organization for which I am a board member, hence I want an uninvolved editor or two to review before moving it. I've respected your work on articles related to Proposition 8, and looking at your user page you seem to be geek-literate as well. If you have time, could you take a look at my sandbox and share your thoughts (perhaps in the talk page there)? I'd appreciate it much. Uberhill 00:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of Terrestrial Fibre Optic Cable Projects in Africa


The article List of Terrestrial Fibre Optic Cable Projects in Africa has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Unreferenced, laundry list of external links with no clear purpose

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 03:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Ex-gay movement
As you took part in the discussion at Talk:Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays, I would like to notify you of a similar discussion you may be interested in participating in at Talk:Ex-gay movement. --~ Knowzilla  (Talk)  15:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Same Sex Opponents
You recently suggested that another editor had committed vandalism by reverting your edits. Per WP:VANDAL, "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." At this point, you have some edits that are clearly being argued against on the talk page; reversion of same is editing, not vandalism. You may find it easier to advance your cause if you assume good faith. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)(MESSAGE RESTORED FROM ADDRESSED USER'S PAGE, WHERE IT HAD BEEN DELETED.)


 * If he is anti same sex marriage (as he claims on his user page), why did User:NYyankees51 removed entries from the article without a discussion? Seems like vandalism to me!--XLR8TION (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Failing to make an editorial comment does not make one a vandal, and an edit does not become vandalism simply because you disagree with him politically. Being against SSM does not mean he cannot have a reasonable view of what is appropriate in an article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You can have a view on the topic, but WHY DID USER DELETE ENTRIES??? That's vandalism, plain and simple. Not even an iota of dialogue on the article discussion page. Just delete - blank - poof! Vandalism, plain and simple.--XLR8TION (talk) 02:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggest you review WP:VANDAL and WP:AGF. The fact that you don't know his reason for deletion does not make it vandalism. Could there be reasons to delete your additions? Seeing that other editors have been doing so with stated reasons, the answer is clearly yes. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The difference between those and this vandal is that they are conversating on dialogue page and do not state that they are against SSM on their user page. It's like a Norweigan right wing radical removing information from the Prophet Mohammed's article with no discussion. Doesn't take a genius that to see that is vandalism. It's vandalism, plain and simple and end of conversation. Have a good night. Will not continue further conversations regarding the vandal who vandalized the article. --XLR8TION (talk) 02:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You have made deletive edits to the same article without an appropriate edit comment, and you appear to be an opponent of Opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States; should we assume you a vandal? --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Wassup
Hey Nat! How's that retirement coming? Got your wiki-yacht yet? – Lionel (talk) 03:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Law review as RS?
Hi there, NatGertler. Regarding this reversion, will you please point me at whichever bit of Wikipedia protocol smiles on the use of law review articles as is done in that chunk of text? I don't dispute that the analysis is cogent, I'd just like to understand the policy under which it is admissible here. Thanks! —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 03:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As the guidelines on reliable sources indicate, academic and scholarly journals are the highest echelon of sourcing. In this case, it is an analysis by someone who has been recognized as one of the most cited family law professors in the nation, which reflects a level of expertise. Your call for "facts, not opinions" suggests that opinions do not have a place in Wikipedia articles, when clearly they do; WP:NPOV calls for us to include "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". If the NYTimes said that DOMA "relieves states of a constitutional obligation to enforce judicial custody, alimony or other orders made in other states that involve recognition of same-sex marriages", we would consider that to be reliably sourced and include it in the article, and the law journal should actually be considered a more reliable source, not less. --Nat Gertler (talk) 08:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 21:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Feng (Program)
I created a stub page for a previously deleted page.

"...the original editor was the person who also had posted the material that was copied?"

No.

The original page was deleted for G12 - a false assertion. The infringed source cited by the admin was http://www.downv.com/Linux/download-Feng-10020546.htm, a download site that copied the project page text. --CanuckMike (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Article: Programming The Z80
Thanks for adding the formatting to the page. Another editor has added Categories, which is great because those are two things I am not yet all that clued-up on. Currently I am trying to source published reviews of this book. From what I have read online it was [still is?] considered almost a Z80 Programmer's "Bible", or at least one of the best books for programming the Z80. I used this in my teens for learning assembly programming and understand why others have such a high view of it - and though I agree that it is probably indispensible as a reference book, it still seems fairly formidable to me as a book for learning Z80 programming from, perhaps due to its quite serious and formal tone. I have a copy (Radio Shack 2nd edition). I'd like to get a comment or two from any published reviews. There was quite a few magazines published in the 1980s, so I have been focusing on the more general computing ones for reviews, as well as the more serious, hobbyist computer-specific magazines like ZX Computing (not found anything there from 1982 - 1984). It seems (to my mind) likely that this was reviewed somewhere, beyond the odd paragraph or recommendation in a programming column. But of course it is just possible that it wasn't. Just not sure where to focus my research. Can you suggest somewhere on Wikipedia to ask?. Going to put the reviews question on the article talk page to start. Also (if this is a topic you are familiar with?) are there any other general Z80 texts that you think wikipedia ought to have articles on? For instance I have a PDF of William Barden's the Z-80 Microcomputer handbookand could start an article on that when I have time. DMSBel (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, learning Assembly is going to be formidable no matter where you first encounter it. Some of the results of a Google Book Search for "Programming the Z80" Zaks suggest the existence of reviews, but the whole things are not there. While I did earn my living programming Z80s for a number of years there, I honestly don't even remember the name of the Z80 book I learned from, and cannot say I researched others. Don't worry too much about not knowing how to do everything in Wikipedia; while learning to do more is of course good, if you can get the meat into article, various Wikignomes are apt to appear to polish it up. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, yes Wikignomes carry on an important task! It generally takes me 3 or 4 minor (or major) re-writes to be happy with what I have written. But I don't mind in the least anyone re-phrasing sentences better or correcting technical details. Another fairly major and early programming text on the Z80 seems to be Lance Leventhal's []. Going to check if it is already on or not. DMSBel (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Those search results are very appreciated thanks, narrows things down a little more. Personal Computing Volume 5 looks more promising than anything else I have come across so far.DMSBel (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, the Leventhal. That was my text, a quarter century or so ago... Anyway, I've moved the article to fix the capitalization of "the" in the title. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, thanks. I had tried to change my capitalization, hope it did not give you too much trouble, will be careful for again with that.DMSBel (talk) 22:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Grace Gawler
Nat how do I work with you re Grace Gawler page? PipCornall — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipcornall (talk • contribs) 00:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Hello Nat, I can appreciate your efforts to help me 'clean up' the article Grace Gawler - thanks - I agree it looks more'encyclopedic'. You can tell I'm a newcomer.

Perhaps you can assist me with regard to libel isssue on the Ian Gawler, Ainslie Meares pages because it is important that cancer patients know the truth. Cancer authorities in this country are alarmed at the increase of deaths from patients chosing alternative medicine - this number is likely in the thousands. Ian Gawler and his materials are likely the country's biggest influence for those patient choices. The case concerns Grace Gawler's Australian Medical Journal (MJA)rebuttal letter exposing errors in 2 MJA article about Ian Gawler. As a result of that letter Ian Gawler publicly admitted to knowledge of the errors.

But cancer patients, in large have not been told, and continue to follow 'what they believe' he did to cure his bone cancer -

Since Ian Gawler admitted knowing of the erorrs in both MJA articles -it would seem to me that there is no libel issue Not sharing the information could ending up supporting incorrect information in 2 MJA article and contribute to more deaths from alt/med and seems worse than any libel issue. As I understand libel - if it is true and proveable - it is not liebellous?

Thanks for your edits. With respect to you Nat - Perhaps this needs to be looked at by Wiki editors with medical science backgrounds What to you think? Pip Pipcornall (talk) 23:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Society of Biblical Literature
Hi, since you contributed to the SBL GNT Talk page, for which thanks, you may wish to participate in the discussion on refs and tags. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Criminal Empire for Dummies
You are right. I looked into it and I couldn't find anything else on this film. And its title differs from source to source (Dummy's or Dummies). The film has been completed according to IMDb, but it's unreliable so I don't know :) I think a delete would be right. Pancake (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Now I'm less sure. Searching for it under the ungrammatical title (which I find promo materials using, so it probably actually is the right title, which would mean undoing the move), I find a couple of mentions of people having been in the film... but it's the sort of short aside mention that some source likely referenced to the IMDB listing. And if it really was shot over a year ago, you think we'd hear something about it by now. I'm going to leave the PROD on for a couple of days whilst I mull this. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, take your time. Pancake (talk) 10:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Alice Offley > Thanks
Hi there

Thanks for asking Courcelles to userfy Alice Offley. I saw that Courcelles refused. I assume it's a principled position of some sort, so I guess that's it then. I wonder what the issue is with userfying BLPs. Do you think it might be possible to get it undeleted in future if the artist becomes better known?

 Rubywine. talk 07:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's quite possible to get it userfied now, just by another administrator, as he suggests, by going to WP:REFUND. In your post there, I would suggest stressing that its failure at AfD was due to falling just a little short of notability, that you want to userfy it so that you can maintain it during a brief period surrounding this upcoming release, and if that new release does not quickly up her notability, you will delete the userfied page. Let me know that you have posted this at WP:REFUND, and I will add a note as the person who requested the deletion, in support. (And don't worry about the capitalization problem; should the time come for you to move it back into article space, you can retitle it at that time.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I've put the request in: Requests for undeletion. Many thanks.  Rubywine . talk 16:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Can you please undelete this now as I have per your advice Nat have some reviews of her EP to put on her entry which will satisfy your proposed evidence of notability..

http://www.theocelot.co.uk/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1595

http://www.greenmanmusic.biz/?p=3546

http://www.theocelot.co.uk/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1549

And has become the face of CASIO keyboards

http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/leisure/music/news/9253583.Piano_gift_will_be_key_to_future_success_for_Alice/

Thanks Mat Routebison (talk) 00:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
 Rubywine. talk 21:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi I was the person who originally put the entry in.

There is this as a press reference if this helps?

http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/leisure/music/news/9188059.Every_day_we_are_shuffling_on_down_to_the_Swindon_Shuffle/

Thanks for your help with this Rubywine! :-) Routebison (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Can you please undelete this now as I have per your advice Nat have some reviews of her EP to put on her entry which will satisfy your proposed evidence of notability..

http://www.theocelot.co.uk/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1595

http://www.greenmanmusic.biz/?p=3546

http://www.theocelot.co.uk/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1549

And has become the face of CASIO keyboards

http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/leisure/music/news/9253583.Piano_gift_will_be_key_to_future_success_for_Alice/

Thanks Mat Routebison (talk) 00:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Robin Michael Smith
I give. It's not worth the effort. Please delete. You're very defensive and unprofessional. There are proper and respectful ways to debate, and name-calling is not proper or respectful. Psherburne (talk) 00:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you would care to point to where I supposedly called you a name, please do. Otherwise, kindly withdraw your accusation. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It appears that you are so proficient at name-calling that calling me a liar and an unreliable-source don't even register to you as offensive terms. Psherburne (talk) 00:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I never said you were a liar. I did address factual claims you made; are we not to identify and seek to correct errors? I did not call you an unreliable source, I said the sources you were relying on were not reliable. "Reliable source" has specific meaning within Wikipedia and (as I have done before) I suggest that you review the reliable source guidelines. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC) (Note to myself for future reference: Articles for deletion/Robin Michael Smith is the relevant page.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

"Your sourcing is material provided to you ... and to other non-reliable sources." Your quote. I actually worked very hard on the original article and on the Wikipedia article. I contacted the publisher while writing the original article, and they are waiting to release information regarding the book because of legal reasons regarding confidential information. You should ask more questions and make less insinuations. You have allowed your ego to get the better of you. Psherburne (talk) 02:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You may wish to reparse that sentence. What it's intended to say is that you used as your sources ("sourcing... to") material provided by the author, who is not a reliable source for claims about himself that have promotional value (per WP:ABOUTSELF), and to other sources who, as with the author, would not be considered reliable under WP:RS. I can understand how you might parse it otherwise, but the way you're doing is certainly not the statement intended. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

How to cite something missing.
Hi NatGertler,

I expected the citation needed tag. And will probably have to remove the statement; not because it isn't true but because no one published anything, obituary or the fact that no obituary was published. When Maxwell died I looked and looked for some kind of official recognition in print, and could find nothing. Loma Linda University had a memorial service, but no church paper, that I know of, reported his passing. Thanks for your input. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What you're dealing with, then, is original research. You went, you checked, you perceived an absence. Thing is, Wikipedia is not a place for original research. The fact that no church paper covered his passage could be said if, say, the New York Times had an article that noted that lack of coverage. Otherwise, however, it does not belong in the article.
 * In general, I appreciate editors bringing a lot of enthusiasm to their editing; in the case of you and this article, however, that enthusiasm may need a little trimming. In admirably trying to cover the subject in depth, you seem to be getting into trivial unneeded details (such as the list of other honorees at something he was honored at) and excessive use of quoting. You've built a nice bushy bush there, but at some point someone's going to have to trim it back to a nice neat hedge. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with what you say. Graham Maxwell was the first article I worked on after joining Wikipedia about a year ago. I have come back to this after a long time leaving it be and am intrigued with my own assertions, at least some of them. The list of honorees is unneeded, of course. Another thing about Maxwell, within Adventism he was a major thought leader. Outside of Adventism, very little is said of him. Some have called such a situation 'a walled garden'. I have studied WP's walled garden concept and find it related but different again. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Cheers!
Thanks for all you do to help Wikipedia stay on an even keel. I appreciate it! Binksternet (talk) 07:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Returning the favor
Thanks, and thank you for doing more of the important work of writing actual article material! While I'm at it, would you care to weigh in on the discussion at Talk:Sexual_orientation? It's baffling to me, but I'm trying to avoid participating in an EW. AV3000 (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Ancient sandbox
Hi Nat! Thanks for leaving a message on my talk page about this. You're right of course: the work done there is ancient history. But your comment has me curious: what page in the Wikipedia User: namespace is getting (m)any google ranking? Also, since not everything in that sandbox is deadwood, I wonder could you be more specific about what you particularly prefer to be deleted? Thanks! (sdsds - talk) 20:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I should have guessed. ;-)  I've deleted the material google found.  Of course it's still in the history for that sandbox page.  I hope google knows not to index that!  Thanks for bringing it to my attention.  (sdsds - talk) 21:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

My user space
The article in question was hoiked out of main-space when it was proposed for deletion and it became clear that its removal was, IMHO, not on account of shortcoming in its content, but because people objected to the content itself ever appearing on Wiki. To the best of my K, the original editor was refused permission to user-space it. I am preserving it until such time as the TMM becomes "acceptable" wiki-wise once more, to save other editors from having to recreate it from scratch. At intervals I go through a process of checking the "water", but I have not yet been convinced that the time is apposite to ask that freedom of opinion and speech be recognised in this regard (I am, of course, aware than on many other subjects massive amounts of time are spent ensuring that all sides of a subject get a fair hearing on Wiki -- this, I fear, is not one).

Of course, if you are convinced that TMM will never be allowed into Wiki, and you object to someone preserving a record of it, then you will wish to obliterate my user-page and have me further wiki-banned. Sincerely Simon Cursitor (talk)
 * There is no problem with someone preserving a copy of this, but by Wikipedia policy, the place to keep it is not on Wikipedia. I have called for the page's appropriate deletion. You may not be aware that there is now an article on opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States which covers much the same ground but not tied to the title that had notability problems. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: YouTunez.com
Hello NatGertler. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of YouTunez.com, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. → Σ  τ  c. 02:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Artel Walker
I was able to look at the deleted version. No big differences from that which was deleted. Thanks for the heads-up.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Jim1138
Thanks for letting me know. I think I unblanked because he had deleted the template. Should I not have done that? Thanks for the heads-up. Jim1138 (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I sent Jayarroz an apology. Thanks for informing me.  Best Regards Jim1138 (talk) 04:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Tiny Internet Interface
"Dallas TINI" board would be the most likely search term to find it, in its prime. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding QuestionPro.com
Hello Nat, I appreciate your detailed instructions on the Talk page for the article. The thing is that QuestionPro WAS only a software/website during the years of development, developed and managed by SurveyAnalytics the parent company. It is popular and widely used in the field of market research and in universities. Hence the most of the notable resources will be found referring to QP as a software, not a company. However, later QuestionPro Inc was made a separate corporate and hence it stands as a separate company than its parent SA. There are some notable sources which have talked about QP after it turned into QP INC, for example:

Note: Numeration added by Nat for easier reference
 * 1) http://www.sos.wa.gov/corps/search_results.aspx?search_type=simple&criteria=all&name_type=contains&name=Questionpro&ubi=
 * 2) and the domain is registered to the company: http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois/?tool_id=66&token=&toolhandler_redirect=0&ip=questionpro.com
 * 3) Other secondary sources: http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=7835251
 * 4) http://www.allbusiness.com/technology/software-services-applications-internet-social/5628683-1.html
 * 5) http://www.siteencyclopedia.com/questionpro.com/
 * 6) http://backgroundcheckswiki.com/Employer%20Directory/QuestionPro-Inc/4/2662603/
 * 7) http://www.allbusiness.com/technology/software-services-applications-internet-social/5628683-1.html

From here, would it be more appropriate to just: 1) Add the above provide resources in the article OR 2) Create a new Article by the title QuestionPro Inc 3) Change the category of this article to make it that of a software instead of a company (as QuestionPro Inc is a company and QuestionPro is the online software), as under: []

Also, I just read about 'notability cannot be inherited' so I think your suggestion about removing SA references is appropriate, shall proceed with that once the concern regarding deletion is sorted. Unitedopinions (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, you have shown that QP Inc exists, which is a step forward. However, I'm not seeing anything here that shows that it's notable. Review the guidelines at WP:NCORP to see what it takes for a company to qualify for its own article. I've added numbers to your references above to make them easily citable: #1-3 and 6 are databases. Getting listed in a database is like getting listed in a phone book, it happens to everyone and doesn't confer notability. #4 is a press release, and anyone can issue a press release. #5 appears to be a database, a slightly more limited one, but not one that speaks clearly to the import of the site. #7 is the same link as #4. If an article is to exist on the company, yes, it will help to have some source which says that the company exists, but I've yet to see any source that conveys any notability at all on QP the company. I've yet to see any source that conveys sufficient notability on QP the software (the passing mentions by the founder in that one interview is all). The Seattle tech article that is currently referenced might go some way to justifying having an article on SA, but even that I suspect would not hold up to a challenge.
 * Ask yourself why you want this page. I'm suspecting that you may be affiliated in some form with QP, and are hoping that a wikipedia page will somehow promote it. (You can skip the rest of this paragraph if I'm wrong.) Wikipedia pages for corporations make very poor form of promotion. First off, people are only likely to find the page when they are specifically searching for your company, which is when they've already found you. Secondly, Wikipedia pages tend to wind up very high in Google search results, sometimes even beating out the website of the company itself, but even when not, it makes for a very tempting link to click. Now tell me, do you want the first page that someone curious reads about your company to be your website - a page that you control and automatically steers them to your product - or do you want it to be a Wikipedia page that you don't control, that could be edited by your competition, that you cannot prevent negative information from being added to? (Editors can be particularly harsh in providing "balance" when they think someone is trying to use the page for promotional purposes.)
 * In any case, again, take a look at WP:NCORP and ask yourself if you truly have the references to show that QP Inc is notable under that standard... because that's the standard you'll have to work against should this article go to a deletion discussion. And if you're going to try to switch the article to be about a piece of software, carefully read the Inclusion section at WP:NSOFT and see if you actually have the references to qualify.

--Nat Gertler (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I had been reading Wikipedia guideline articles with regards to notability, neutrality, consensus, citation, title naming conventions etc. for 7-8 days prior to creating the article and then I proceeded with it. I work in the support team of SurveyAnalytics, but I'm not being paid in any way to write any PR for QuestionPro, neither am I being biased about facts and I'm willing to develop the article from NPOV as I get more hang of what information is acceptable on here and what is not.Also, contributions from other users with NPOV will only help creating a well developed article. I have read that Wikipedia understands that people associated with a subject matter can contribute in good faith (I have read and understood http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest ). I see that there are well developed articles about software in this field such as Salesforce so I wish to properly develop an articl I've found one more source: http://www.inc.com/inc5000/profile/survey-analytics and another one that I've posted earlier already: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2008136070_brier25.html (in here they clearly reference QuestionPro as the main business of SA) I hope these references from the INC 500 and Seattle Times will help add to the notability. In 2008 we were the #172 fastest growing company by INC (this list is no longer online, but we can provide a copy if needed). In 2009 we were the #685 fastest growing on INC.com (and #67 fastest growing in Advertising and Marketing). Essentially all of the revenue reported by Survey Analytics was generated by QuestionPro.

As you'll see on INC.com the only URL listed for Survey Analytics is www.questionpro.com. For many years Survey Analytics was "Doing Business As" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doing_business_as ) as QuestionPro. We've since split out QuestionPro out as it's own legal company. We believe it makes more sense to the general public, and is of greater benefit to the Wikipedia community, for the Article to be titled QuestionPro instead of Survey Analytics. QuestionPro has over 1,000,000 authenticated members, and 2.4 million unique visitors per year. This large community is much more likely to search for and recognize QuestionPro instead of Survey Analytics, and we believe would be therefore be a more relevant and useful article. Unitedopinions (talk) 12:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that given that it appears that you'll have a hard time establishing notability for QuestionPro (the two refs you give above, the Inc one only mentions it as the website name for the company, the Seattle one only mentions it as something that got a good Google result) and that you'll have an easier (although not assured) time establishing notability for SA, that you set up the page as a Survey Analytics page and set up QuestionPro as a WP:redirect page that links to it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nat. I've put in lot of time searching for references published in university peer reviewed papers and on gov sites. I also found a couple of other links which are from sites that are well reputed (for example brothersoft). I've changed the category of the topic to software from company and have changed the infobox type accordingly. Since the time given for discussion was almost up, I've removed the notice on the page so that you can have a look. Please feel free to make any changes to the language if you feel NPOV being compromised with. Also, if you have other editors in contact who are from this field, it would be great if they can come and contribute to the article. --Unitedopinions (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Stacked (TV film)
The article is just a repeat of the title which qualifies for A1, it's easier to just CSD the article than prod it. Thanks Secret account 19:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent contributions
Hello there. I appreciate your help on the pages Arrhythmia and Ruins & Relics, however, you removed some sources that I put time and effort into finding and putting there. Again, glad you wanted to contribute, but I don't appreciate you removing those sources. And thank you for those reviews BTW, they were helpful, mine might've been a tad long. I have made sure what I have written in those articles are mainly relevant, so I don't appreciate you removing any of that either. Thanks for your help, I can take it from here. Creativity97  Talk?  17:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Ooops sorry you didn't contribute to Ruins & Relics, just Arrhythmia. Sorry about that. Creativity97  Talk?  17:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It is not my goal in my editing to be appreciated by you. It is my goal to improve the content of Wikipedia. When you make an article that comes across as WP:PROMO, as Arrhythmia did, you should expect the hype to be pared back. I am not going to discontinue editing because you wish to take it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well okay then. There was no need to be so rude. I tried to be nice and you didn't bother to return that favor. Thank you for the sources and for cleaning it up, it is gladly appreciated. I do not wish to be in further contact with you. Creativity97   Talk?  19:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If telling someone how much you don't appreciate their efforts is your idea of being "nice"... --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * What I meant was I was trying to say it in a nice way. As of now I will not be contacting you again. I don't like your attitude so leave me alone. This doesn't require a response. Creativity97   Talk?  21:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, so you wanted to rudely lecture me about how I'm supposed to be doing things for your appreciation, but to do so with a veneer of politeness? And when someone explains that they aren't living their life in order to be appreciated by you, that's "rude"? --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That's enough. Leave me alone. Creativity97   Talk?  22:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? You're the one who started this conversation, you're the one who has repeatedly come back here to lecture me, command me, and lie to me. You still seem to be under the misapprehension that I exist to obtain your appreciation. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Admiral Sherman E. Burroughs
Thanks for the title change. I was trying to think of something differentiate between Rep. Burroughs and Admiral Burroughs. I like your title much better. Thanks again! Quill and Pen (talk) 02:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad to help! I did set up a disambiguation page at Sherman E. Burroughs, which should help. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm a new editor...quite fun, actually.
Thanks for the feedback on the LIfepak page. This is all new and a bit overwhelming to me. I've been a fan of Wikipedia for quite a few years, read countless articles on cars, aircraft, history, my field of employment and what have you. I didn't fully realize just how much goes into making one article. Gotta brush up on my referencing, spoken word may not be enough sometimes :-)

I want to write an article about the company I work for. It's called Hunter EMS, and it's similar to Transcare EMS. It's based in the same area, concentrated on Long Island. Lately I've been getting patients and family members asking about us, for information and such. Who we are, what we do, etc. Sometimes our websites don't always work, we've had some server problems. I actually had somebody today ask me if we have a Wikipedia page, which we don't. They'd heard about all the hype surrounding the SOPA protest. My question is, are the websites of the company (we have 2) enough of a reference? I noticed that Transcare's article really only uses their website along with one newsletter reference.

Thanks a bunch, WFD6940 — Preceding unsigned comment added by WFD6940 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * First, let me caution you about writing about the company you work for. You should review our conflict of interest guidelines; in general, creating articles about companies you work for makes your edits seem suspicious.
 * As for whether the websites of the company are sufficient, the answer is basically no. You may want to review the guidelines for "notability" for a corporation (which basically means whether a company is worthy of inclusion.) As you'll see, key to whether a company is notable is whether reliable third-party sources are talking about it and indicating its importance, so inclusion of third-party reference is important. There are certain facts we generally trust from first-party sources unless otherwise contradicted, mainly things that cannot be seen as boastful. For example, if your company website says that company was founded in 1972, that's citable, but if it says that it's the leading EMS in the area or has the fastest response time or uses cutting-edge technology, well, that's seen as simply promotional and should not be cited in the article.
 * I hope that that helps! --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

That clears a lot of it up. Thanks again. Big help. It was just an idea that floated in my head. I can see I still have lots to learn. Won't discourage me from asking for help, though. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WFD6940 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Same-Sex Marriage Washington
In the case of uncertainty, expectation is what is considered the most likely to happen. An expectation, which is a belief that is centered on the future, may or may not be realistic. A less advantageous result gives rise to the emotion of disappointment. If something happens that is not at all expected it is a surprise

Samesexmarriage101 (talk) 07:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm unsure what that has to do with the fact that reliable sources are reporting that passage in the House is almost certain to happen, and that the Governor has already said it will be signed. --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
 Claret Ash  03:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

2/19/2012
I'm not sure why you trigger-happy reviewers leave comments, without checking context of material you are discussing and without clarifying which of the millions of guidelines should be used. The page you're requesting cleanup on herefordisamb is new as of today, and has no other 'format'. The subject is a name which relates to more than one public figure, and there is no other type of wording possible to specify the difference between the nearly nine or ten people it pertains to (that's with exclusion of about 100+ other non-prominent people), other than the facts included on the page. Main subject is on a separate page here for main subject1 with a notification about the disamb. Perhaps you can get a Wiki expert can get the page to look prettier, without changing the wording? Let me know.Blurbzone (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * First off, let me suggest that you not respond to these thing with barrels a-blazin'. Posting a message that starts with insults and false assumptions is not, I suspect you will find, the best way to get a helpful response. In this case, if you want a pointer to the specific guidelines for disambiguation pages, you would find it in the comments left on the talk page of the page in question, which you do not appear to have checked. There is a standard format for disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. More importantly, there is a standard function of disambiguation pages: they are used to disambiguate between Wikipedia articles covering topics of similar names. Your article seems to be covering a plentitude of persons who do not have their own articles, nor are they mentioned significantly in other articles, and thus they need not be cluttering up the page. It is also full of references, which are both unneeded and inappropriate on disambiguation pages. I didn't have the time to pull ever claim apart in detail, but at first glance it looks like the article makes reference to just one who has a real place in Wikipedia.... in which case, a disambiguation page is not needed at all. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the mistakes, I'm drunk
Just kidding... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teammm (talk • contribs) 01:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know
Yes, yes, the edit I made to Maggie Gallagher was exactly 666 characters. No, this was not on purpose. I am not The Beast; I'm a lesser minion at best! --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Androzaniamy
Hi NatGertler. I know you mean well, but can you please stop discussing other user's comments at Androzaniamy's page? All it serves to do is extend the conversation, which she's not part of - which is adding a lot of noise. To be clear, I'm not asking you to de-watchlist the page, nor to stop offering advice, but rather to stop discussing other editors advice - Amy can make up her own mind and I'd rather be the editor who points out whether advice is problematic. If you have a problem with another editors advice, can you take it to said editor's talk page. Thank you. WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 09:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry
I didn't think anything about creating the sub-page for Lists of mines. For future reference, if the need ever arises again... where should I put it.. ? for now I CSD'd it and moved the content to a personal sub-page of mine... Ncboy2010 (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The thing is, the main namespace doesn't actually support WP:subpages. Certainly, your userspace should be fine if the goal is for you to keep track of things you yourself want to address. Is there a Wikipedia project which would cover mines? If so, that would seem a fruitful location. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (I'll just reply here, if you don't mind?) There is a wikiproject that would be affiliated with it, although the fact that there are so many articles missing leads credence to my theory that the project is either unable (too few editors) or unwilling (too many apathetic editors) to address Lists of mines. There were only a handful of them, the list for mines in canada, a couple of its provinces, a few regions of Australia, a list of diamond mines and a list of uranium mines. I've taken the liberty of leaving a message with one of the most active editors on the requested page of the mining wikiproject, but from what I've seen it appears that most, if not every one of, their members are primarily interested in articles specifically about mines.

The entire thing actually started because I occasionally go WP:Requested Articles and see if theres anything that interests me and I saw where someone had requested a list of mines. When I realised there were no articles on it I was very surprised, actually. We've got Lists of lists, lists of pokemon, television shows, characters. We have a list for fictional atheists and agnostics but hardly any lists of mines?

After I started a couple of the articles, I realized the sheer number of articles that would eventually need to be created was insurmountable, I went ahead and tried to create at least a stub for the 10 or so most populous countries. Sorry for the long story. Ncboy2010 (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

3RR
You're at 3RR at straight pride.– Lionel (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

*laughs*
"Mrs. Tyndale-Clyde's Tea". Well done, well done! Now that's an obscure reference (if I'm remembering it correctly at all.). Gave me a chuckle in any case. Best, --joe deckertalk to me 15:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If it gives you a chuckle, then you are remembering it correctly. I reckoned that there would be one person reading it eventually who would recognize it; I'm glad it was you, and that it was now so that I would not live out my years in suspense. Thank you! --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for information
Ho, i would like to write an article on About Comics on the german language wikipedia, and since you are About Comics, i wondered if you could provide me with some proper information on you and your company besides your official homepage. If you could help me on this, please keep in mind that the german wiki is sadly very restrictive when it comes to all things fictional -and especially to comics and comic-related articles- so information of important and/or relevant milestones would be very appreciated. Regards, Mottengott (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your interest. Let's see what I can give you:
 * The first About Comics publication was The Factor issue 0 (1998), a reprinting of three stories written by me for the Caliber anthology Negative Burn, leading into four issues of new stories. (The "About Comics" name had been used slightly earlier for a "packaging" pitch for another publisher that was interested in having comics created for them.)
 * The first book format (paperback) About Comics publication was Panel One: Comic Book Scripts by Top Writers, an anthology showing comic book script format by running examples from Neil Gaiman, Kurt Busiek, Kevin Smith, Jeff Smith, and others. Released in February, 2002, the book continues to be our best backlist seller a decade later (in dollar sales; in unit sales, our best-seller is The Blank Comic Book, which is just blank bound paper in American comics format, but those are soles in multiple-unit sets.)
 * In 2004, as a promotion for the then-upcoming book 24 Hour Comics (edited by Scott McCloud), About Comics launched 24 Hour Comics Day, an annual international comics creation event. About Comics ran the event for its first four years, before passing on the management to the organization ComicsPRO. Over a thousand cartoonists take part each year, producing tens of thousands of pages of original comics. For the last year we ran it, we had official event sites in eighteen countries.
 * About Comics was the first company to include Barack Obama in a comics story (in Licensable BearTM issue 4, 2007), and the first comics specialty publisher to produce an edition for the Kindle (Schulz's Youth, a collection of Charles Schulz's non-Peanuts cartoons, released for Kindle in February, 2008).
 * About Comics has published new stories by notable comics creators like Paul Smith, Frasier Irving, Faith Erin Hicks, Zander Cannon, Kevin Cannon, and bestselling novelist Diane Duane. Our reprint works include stories by Kurt Busiek, Neil Gaiman, Steve Gerber, Steve Bissette, Dave Sim. We've done two collections of the non-Peanuts works of Charles M. Schulz - It's Only a Game (none of which had ever been in book form before) and Schulz's Youth (which included both previously-collected and previously-uncollected material).
 * About Comics has zero employees; formerly based in Thousand Oaks, California, it is now in Camarillo, California.
 * About Comics has a prose imprint, Combustoica, which launched with print-on-demand and ebook editions of The Ferret's Tale by Robert Mayer in 2010. Within about a month we'll be adding audiobooks to our repetoire, starting with the classic 1960s spy parody Loxfinger: An Adventure of Israel Bond, Agent Oy-Oy-7.
 * About Comics also provides "packaging and comics services", really, just about anything involved in comics besides distribution and marketing. We've provided services for IDW, Fantagraphics, Image, an the Complete Idiot's Guide, as well as such efforts ranging from rounding up comics artists to provide alcohol labels for Sherbrooke Liquor to providing a complete custom comic book for a bar mitzvah.
 * I'm not sure what other information you may want, so feel free to ask me any questions. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the quick reply. Okay, there is plenty to work with now, and some of this information, not to mention the sum of it all, should be sufficent to provide an article relevant enough for even the very restrictive german wiki regarding all things comics, at least imHo. Now i'm gonna look for refs and dates and links and the like, and i should be on my way. I hope you don't mind me coming back if i had any further questions? When finished, i will gladly let you have a first-look for possible errors, inconsistencies and such, and feedback, if you like. Thanks again for the infos, regards, --Mottengott (talk) 19:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC) btw: You're doing an adaption of Oy-Oy-7? I'm looking forward to that :)
 * I'd certainly be glad to answer more questions. We're doing a basic audiobook of Loxfinger, and have already put new editions of all four novels out in print and for ebook devices (information available at http://Oy-Oy-7.com .) Glad to hear you're a fan! --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt you'll be using this info on your German page for About Comics, but I made a small error in fact when I said that Schulz's Youth was released for the Kindle in February 2008. It was actually released at some point in 2007. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Warning
I don't see it as inappropriate. The user has never bothered to discuss any of his or her edits on the article's talk page. Had that been different, I might agree with you. But I'll try in the future not to warn so early. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point. I'll work harder on making use of the talk page myself. Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of J.T. Ready for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article J.T. Ready is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/J.T. Ready until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. West Eddy (talk) 00:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in the United States
Thanks for moving the passage about President Obama. That's where I meant to put it, but mistakenly added it to the wrong paragraph. As has been discussed on other pages related to the issue, President Obama's announcement, although not an official "policy" proposal as of yet, has been touted by numerous news sources as "historical" and has been compared to Lyndon Johnson's stance on civil rights in the 1960s. I don't have the sources at my fingertips, but there are various quotes from Michael Bloomberg and other prominent politicians and historians stating essentially the same thing, but I honestly didn't feel there was a need to cite a dozen sources just to add one sentence about it to the lead. Anyway, thanks for catching my mistake and fixing it. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 13:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * When discussing LBJ and civil rights, we have decades of perspective to say whether it did or did not have an impact; we do not yet have that perspective on Obama's stance. As such, it's probably too early to call it important, as interesting as it may be at the moment. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree – It's not for us, as Wikipedia editors, to decide what is or is not "important". However, I've added it on the basis of what numerous journalists, politicians and historians have said.  If you really think you'd feel more comfortable with a dozen or more sources tacked onto that one sentence, then that could be done, but it seems like a lot of unnecessary "busy" work to justify something that could easily be verified by anyone conducting a simple Google news search. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 13:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Even with a bunch of sources, I am not sure that that belongs there; it smacks strongly of WP:RECENTISM. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's recent news, but the sentence is just a simple and concise statement of fact – not a long protracted thesis of the long-term ramifications of the announcement. No other U.S. president has openly declared their support (personal or otherwise) for same-sex marriage while in office – so that "historical" aspect, insofar as it's never happened before in the history of the United States, is just a simple fact verified by the sources provided. I honestly don't see any difference between mentioning that and mentioning North Carolina's ban which took place the previous day. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Universal Life Church
The site with the .org isn't the real HQ that started it all. Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The .org belongs to the monastery, I don't know what happened to the .com. Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW consider this your 3RR warning. Let's discuss this on the article's talk page. Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The place to discuss the article content is on the article talk page; I have responded to your bogus 3RR warning on your talk page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I look forward to your response on the article's talk page. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And it's not a bogus warning. You reverted twice, without discussion. You may think you have a reason, but everyone who reverts thinks they have a reason, even me. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I did one revert and one larger edit to remove outdated material, and even if one judges them both to have been reverts, that would be two. It would not have put me on the edge violating 3RR. I am able to count. I've seen you pull the same crap about people on that same article. Please stop. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Capital Mortgage Funding
You PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has now been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to condier taking it to AfD. regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

El Naschie witness
The court judgement in the El Naschie case http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/456432a-s1.pdf refers on p. 12 to the "requirement that experts should not take it upon themselves to promote the point of view of the party instructing them or engage in the role of advocates" For me that would mean that we can quote Turok either directly, or specifically mentioning that he was a defense witness in the trial and said "...". What do you think ? MuppetLabTech (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Everyone in court is required to be truthful; it would be rather naive of us to assume that all that is said in court is the truth. He was making his statement as a paid witness; even if we accept that the nature of his statement was not influenced by money, the thing that makes his belief noted is that the defense picked him out of all the people they could've put on the stand. And frankly, I don't think it's needed; I think the uncontested facts of the situation and the judgment that was reached will paint a sufficiently dark picture of the article's subject for anyone who would care. --19:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. MuppetLabTech (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Focus on the Family dispute
Hi Nat. I'm not sure why Still left you out of this, but since you clearly understand the issues, I think you should join in the discussion at the dispute resolution that he started. Belchfire (talk) 04:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

FotF
In case you didn't see, FotF has gone back to DRN. Why don't you join in, once it gets started?  Belch fire - TALK 17:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

FYI
I've put in a request for temporary, but full page protection for Universal Life Church. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably a good call. We'll see if it sticks. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Condolences
I am sorry to hear that you have apparently been banned. That is certainly surprising news. I'm also sorry to hear that you are part of a sockpuppet account conspiracy. That's surprising, too. I thought you were Nat Gertler the Comic Book Guy, but apparently, you are an army of sockpuppets. Is there anything else we should know? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it certainly is a shame to have been detected and to be unable to post this message. Particularly after having spent years diligently editing Wikipedia before touching the ULC page, just so I can lay cover for my eventual radical edits there, such as correcting the capitalization on headers and telling people to take it to the talk page rather than edit warring.
 * Sometimes its interesting to watch people who are making shit up... first there's a stage where they think they might not get detected, then there's the stage where it's detected but IF THEY REPEAT IT LOUD ENOUGH they might still convince vital folk, and then it sometimes slip into a stage where they are really trying to convince people that even though everyone sees it's false, they still really believe it so it's not lying. In this case, I'm still trying to figure out whether he was (and remains) so convinced of an actual assumption that it didn't matter that he was making up the proof for it, or whether it was simply if he kept flinging accusations against people who were calling for deletion, he'd win the war anyway. But that unblock request... boy, did the account of Jordan Francis die as it had lived!
 * Gotta love the "I know who you are" attack. Signing my own damn name to each and every post, it must take a major detective to figure out who I am. (One of these years, I'm planning to make a Halloween costume of myself - but a 1970s storebought kids costume version, so it's a badly painted mask that kind of looks like me, and a vinyl vest with a photo of me and my name on it. That's my disguise!)
 * Congratulations on naming who he was... now if you had just known when you'd done it. That would give you the magical ability to force him to spin straw into gold. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

NOM - Hate Group debate
I reverted the page back because I found a reference straight from Southern Poverty Law Center citing the organization as a hate group. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/the-hard-liners Jackal242 (talk) 05:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As I note elsewhere, that is a list of "anti-gay" groups; only the ones marked with an asterisk are designated as "hate" groups. The NOM entry bears no such asterisk, and as I've noted on the talk page, the SPLC later reiterated that NOM had not qualified for the hate designation. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
 Theopolisme TALK 11:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion
Hello, NatGertler. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record in my own files: here is where the accuser specifically revoked the Wikiquette accusation against me. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

David Barton (author): Use of "fact" tags
You recently used a bunch of "fact" tags on David Barton (author). While I appreciate your concern about keeping Wikipedia accurate, checking a number of the places where you put "fact" tags I found the relevant fact in the next listed reference following where you placed the tag. Additionally, you put "fact" tags in the lead; per WP:WHYCITE, "Citations are also often discouraged in the lead section of an article, insofar as it summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article". Something like the claim that Barton is a best-selling author needn't be cited in the lead as it is cited in a later section. I have undone your edits en mass as time is tight on my end; you may wish to review your concerns, check the references, and restore any individual fact tags for material that is still not found in the listed sources. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your note. You appear to have a WP:POV on this article, and "not having the time" is not an excuse to not palce the correct WP:CITE in place. I have therefore reverted your assumptive edit, and placed notes on the articles talkpage. I hope when you have time to respect the process and avoid your own POV, that the correct cites can be put in place. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 14:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)