User talk:NatGertler/Archive 3

Glora Fox
Hi NatGetler. Thanks for helping with the phrasing of the new page on Gloria Fox! I am excited to see another editor help out with the Massachusetts General Court bio page work. I am wondering if you'd be OK with me re-inserting the piece about Fox not having faced a general election opponent. At such a late hour of the night I wasn't paying good enough attention to my phrasing and, upon review, it does sound like I ignored the fact that she ran against Bunte. In actuality, she has not faced a general election opponent SINCE 1986. I'd love to put it back in considering A) I feel it's an important aspect of her career, and B) I took the time to check every Massachusetts elections statistics publication since then. I can cite all of them if you deem it necessary. Just wanted to reach out and get your thoughts, since you made the edit. Thanks for your help. Rjp422 (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Flags and Same-sex marriage legislation around the world
Could you give your opinion here? Ron 1987 (talk) 01:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

El Naschie
Hi - I've proposed some changes to the article Mohamed El Naschie on the article's talk page. Since you've commented on previous discussions on that page, I'd appreciate your input on this one. All the best, Markus Poessel (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter
Hey. I'm dropping you a note because you used to (or still do!) patrol new pages. This is just to let you know that we've deployed and developed Page Curation, which augments and supersedes Special:NewPages - there are a lot of interesting new features :). There's some help documentation here if you want to familiarise yourself with the system and start using it. If you find any bugs or have requests for new features, let us know here. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Hotspot Shield
Hi Nat. Thank you for your feedback regarding the Hotspot Shield article. Could you please let me know which sections to modify or delete from the entry? I can add more public statistics or info-graphics, or I can also add whole section about the controversies so far. I would really appreciate any suggestion or guidance you can give me regarding this. Could you please userfy the page or email me a copy so I can start making it more neutral? Thank you in advance for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miroslav303 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nat, re your request on  my  talk page. I  have reviewed the deleted material  again, and in  my  opinion, it is so promotional (and apparently  professionally  written) that I cannot take the responsibility of even userfying it where it would still be visible on  Wikipedia to those who might find it.
 * I can however offer to email a copy of it to the author on the understanding that s/he must  make a local  draft  first  on  their own computer that  complies fully  with  our policies at Neutrality and  Advertising, our  criteria for inclusion at  General Notability Guidelines and Notability  for Comapanies and that  coverage in number, depth, and focus is adequately  provided by  our guidelines for   Reliable Sources - and that  Conflict  of Interest (if applicable) is taken into  consideration. The draft should then be posted their user space where it  will  be  reviewed by an admin before being moved to mainspace. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no objections to that solution. Frankly, I do not recall the article in question, and will take your word that it is fundamentally promotional (and really, I'm taking my own word since I flagged it as such.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you, that sounds perfect. Please email me the copy and I will change it locally. Then I will upload it to my user space for your review. Thanks so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miroslav303 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to follow up to this: do we email you or some other admin regarding this, or will you email us the info? Just making sure I'm not missing any notifications or sections here on Wikipedia where one of you may have responded to us. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miroslav303 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * A copy of the article has been emailed to the creator by an administrator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Your Revert of my Change to Same-sex marriage in the United States
Hi. This is regarding your revert of my change to Same-sex marriage in the United States. My edit summary wasn't completely clear, what I was trying to indicate is that not only was the way it was previously written likely to become not true at any given point in the future, but it is probably not even true right now. As the latest polls regarding the issue show that Americans are statistically evenly split on the issue as the latest Gallup Poll that tracks the issue indicates that 50% are in favor and 48% are opposed with a margin or error of +/- 3%. My source is the latest Gallup Poll regarding the issue. Many articles on Wikipedia that reference Polls usually misinterpret them as one poll, or even a group of polls, do not necessarily prove anything and one should look at the polling methodology closely before stating opinions about conclusions about what the poll "proves" and then stating these conclusions as if their fact. Also, I disagree with your statement about articles not needing to be always true (although fair point about bios., for example it may say they alive but they could die at any given point). I think the way I had it written not only would be true now, but would be true even if the polls change again. I will not undo your revert, but I will open a discussion on the articles talk page regarding the fact that the most recent poll shows a statistical dead heat and that the Gallup Polls only indicate that a majority were in favor for about one year (2011).

If you still think I'm wrong and your right, then please join the discussion on the Talk Page (which I will be opening shortly). However, if you want to take the most recent polls indicating a statistical dead-heat into consideration and reword the sentence, then I will remove my objection on the relevant Talk Page. With Thanks, King of Nothing (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Attentive request
Welcome NatGertler. On 14 November, at marriage talk page I addressed to you kindly a request for your suggestion of opening text. But if you express disinterest, then, of course, I can continue the discussion thread without your participation in the form of some suggestion of the text of opening. Regards --Robsuper (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Raymond Mitchell
I figured this passes basic WP:GNG, from a historical perspective? Not entirely sure. I see you PRODed it, if it's not giving you the warm and fuzzies the way I left it, go ahead and take it to AfD. I tend to be much more lenient with historical biographies :) Cheers! § FreeRangeFrog 03:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The only prod I did for Raymond Mitchell was a BLP Prod, which is a system used for handling biographies of living persons that don't have references. It was an erroneous prod, I confess; I missed that there was a death date amidst the non-standard formatting that the article had originally used. I have no desire to see what standards have evolved for notability of military members, and will likely take the article off of my watchlist. Good work cleaning up much of the formatting. --Nat Gertler (talk)
 * Yeah, cuz he's dead :) Thanks. § FreeRangeFrog 03:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in Washington State
I think you're a day late commenting on this. It's been moved twice. From "Same-sex marriage in Washington state" to "Same-sex marriage in Washington (state)" to Same-sex marriage in Washington State. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It was broken
Hi, I noticed you reverted me here. Although I gave the redirects reason in my edit summary, there were other reasons for my edit. The article read, "...large Christian sects such as Orthodox Catholic Church, Southern Baptist, and Mormon." First off, it was not grammatically correct. Second, a Southern Baptist is not a Christian sect, or branch of Christianity; a Southern Baptist is a person. Ditto with "Mormon." (Besides, the Mormon redirected to Mormons, also people.) My edit was a step towards fixing the inaccuracies and grammatical problems, as I replaced Southern Baptist with the organization Southern Baptist Convention. I also linked to the religion Mormonism, instead of the people Mormons. I would appreciate it if you could self-revert, since I have made it my goal to stick to a voluntary 1RR. Also, sorry for the short and confusing edit summary. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * While you're at it, would you mind inserting a "the" before "Orthodox Catholic Church"? Also, a "church" after the "Catholic" in the sentence beginning "The official hierarchical position of the Roman Catholic is to oppose same-sex marriage." I'd do it myself, but I think I'm done editing at that article. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am reluctant to simply revert my revert, in large part because the things you edited to also failed to make a cohesive sentence (you are mixing together institutions like the SBC with belief systems like Mormonism.) I don't have time at the moment to iron out phrasing, so I'm WP:STATUSQUOing it for now. I do not feel like being someone's meatpuppet for their edits. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If we were STATUSQUOing, we'd remove the paragraph entirely, since it was added today. Self-reverting would certainly be an improvement, though you do have a point about Mormonism...It would be better to link to the LDS Church. I guess I was just frustrated that I was making a legitimate improvement to the article and got reverted for a technicality. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

AfD
Hi NatGertler. Just to let you know, I've removed the PROD/CSD at Nail Adam and Abdurahman Warsame in order to bundle into this AfD. That's not to say that you were wrong (though the CSD isn't certain), I just thought it would be good to have all four articles discussed together in the same AfD, as they are all related. Hope you don't mind. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Blanco Caine Page Creation
Hello Nat...thank you for your input on my Blanco Caine article. I have added some relevant links and media articles for this artist...are the changes I made what you were suggesting? This is only my 2nd article creation but this artist is deserving of a place in Wikipedia in my humble opinion. I have not mastered all of the fine tuning for fleshing out a page such as the tables and artist pics but I am willing to take any guidance and follow instruction to the letter. I have tried to find answers via the help pages and tutorials but was hoping to perhaps get guidance from an experienced editor. If you have the time, would you tell me what I am missing for this page to make it stick? I will find the information and insert it. I do want to thank you for not deleting the article outright and giving me an opportunity to make it fit Wikipedia standards.Theurbanlink (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Jerry, thank you for the supportive comments. I'll be addressing your concerns on the article's talk page, so that anyone else interested might see and help out. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Nat, I have a question about the use of Wikipedia links as references. On the other page I created EDUBB, there is a tag there about not having links to other Wikipedia pages and that the article appears to be an orphan. I added Wikipedia links to this particular article we are discussing and your notes say we do NOT use Wikipedia pages as reference. I am a bit confused and really, the reading material is not much assistance.Theurbanlink (talk) 02:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Assistance Request
Hello Nat, I am hoping to gain your assistance for another article I created on the band EDUBB it has been nominated for speedy deletion. The group has MUCH more notability and more valid references than by Blanco Caine article. Could I get your input as to what I may have done wrong with that article or if the other person is being trivial. Several other editors/contributors have helped with input on this article and while they have tagged it as an orphan, none have tagged it for deletion and it has existed for months. Thank you if you have time to give me guidance on this. RespectfullyTheurbanlink (talk) 08:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Friedrich Petzel Gallery
Hi Nat. I've declined the WP:A7, but please feel free to take this article to WP:AfD. Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 06:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Frank20041
I restored the original unblock that I had declined for another admin to review. Daniel Case (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (belatedly) You're welcome. Daniel Case (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Your request for undeletion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that a response has been made at Requests for undeletion regarding a submission you made. The thread is Bruce Gerencser. JohnCD (talk) 09:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Frostbox
I have renominated Frostbox for deletion. Me being lazy I have quoted your first nomination. Currently at Articles for deletion/Frostbox (2nd nomination). If I've erred let me know. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Danny Brown - producer/engineer/musician ARTICLE UP FOR DELETION
Hello Nat,

I have tried to add references to the article I created, but I have had no luck making them show up. I am at a loss about how to handle this. I am not very good at manipulating and editing Wikipedia, but hitting the EDIT BUTTON, inserting the references and then saving shouldn't be all that complicated.

Help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbbubba01 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Deletion nominations
Good work in nominating articles for deletions, with very few errors--and especially for your efforts at fixing the fixable. And very particularly for your persistence at All Natural Food Zone.  DGG ( talk ) 22:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Rollback
I noticed you've been doing plenty of good work around here, including reverting vandalism. Would you like the rollback tool? It'll let you revert marginally faster than Twinkle. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  ♠ 03:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * thanks for he recognition, but I already have Rollback; I just use it sparingly. -Nat Gertler (talk) 03:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Beyond Ex-Gay
An article that you have been involved in editing, Beyond Ex-Gay, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 09:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=555397682 your edit] to Benjamin Wittes may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].

CARE article MOS:BOLD editing leftovers
Hi. In your recent editing of the CARE article for MOS:BOLD you introduced some vandalism. I edited out the vandalism. Please review you edits next time. 83.235.57.51 (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your concern for the article. However, may I suggest that before you accuse other of "vandalism", you review WP:VANDALISM to understand what that term means in a Wikipedia context. A typo does not qualify. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Check the diff of my edit. You'll see that the problem was more than just a typo. 83.235.57.51 (talk) 09:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it was simply that when entering he edit summary after editing the page, the edit summary field got deselcted and the main text area got selected, and while i caught the deselection, I did mot catch he selection. Thus it was a typing error ("typo") and not a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" ("vandalism"). -Nat Gertler (talk) 13:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * My apologies. 83.235.57.51 (talk) 06:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Parkinson's disease
I have reverted your bold edit to the article. It is a featured article and in pretty good shape, and while I might agree with many of your changes other are not so clear: You named in lead the pope, whereas it is not named anywhere else in the article (nor we have any ref saying that he enhanced visibility of PD, also you included other languages data, which I think that now with wikidata is unneeded. You also eliminated some well sourced info... and your edit summary was simply uncomprenhensible. It would be great if you could discuss your edits at talk page before making them, or that at least you separated them in several edits with real edit summaries.--Garrondo (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * My apologies; in tracking some problematic edits, I accidentally missed that I was editing an old version of the page and thus undid the edits that followed (including one that would've made my edit unneeded). I'm usually good about noticing that. Time to seek out caffeine. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

My course assignment
Hey, thanks for your concern. I already got a grade today, a B. I showed my instructor the page you suggested and he promised to keep it in mind for future reference. I'll try and make my article better even though it was already graded, since I'm a dedicated fan of Mike Mozart. Any sggestions on how can I improve it (besides additional sources) would be appreciated. xoxo — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuliaParis (talk • contribs) 10:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks; I'm holding off on fixing more of the dead links at the moment because the article is in heavy editing mode at the moment, thanks to today's event. Better to do it when not tripping over other editors. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Meetup
You are invited to "Come Edit Wikipedia!" at the West Hollywood Library on Saturday, July 27th, 2013. There will be coffee, cookies, and good times! -- Olegkagan (talk) &mdash; Message delivered by Hazard-Bot at 04:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Response to Peanuts
Have corrected this per your request as to the future of the Peanuts strips. Thanks. Hiphats (talk) 04:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Red Links
I should have explained it better on the editor's page. Most of the candidates that they attempted to link to are unknown candidates that really have no reason to have a wikipedia page and almost certainly will never have one created. They are not people considered major contenders or notable for anything significant. I will continue to remove red links for people like that. If there is a reason for them to have a page and it is reasonable that one may be made, then I will leave it up. Rxguy (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

List of comics publishing companies
Hi, since you`re one of the main contributors to said list, i`m very interested in your opinion regarding Column for "Titles". Thanks in advance, regards, Gott 20:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Please stop copying material from other sites
Thank you for editing the page I was working on and for including information regarding your policy on copyright. It was not my intention to copy copyrighted material from other sites. I've read through a lot of the Help pages including BLP, Notability (People), Secondary Sources, etc. and still had a hard time figuring out how to include the biographical information. Hjmalan (talk) 22:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Meetup
Help build the Wikipedia community in Southern California at "Come Edit Wikipedia!" presented by the West Hollywood Library on Saturday, August 31st, 2013 from 1-5pm. Drop in for some lively editing and conversation! Plus, it's a library, so there are plenty of sources. --Olegkagan (talk) &mdash; Message delivered by Hazard-Bot at 02:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

2012 Democratic National Convention
Good catch! The correct numbers seem to be 5,554 and 2,778 and I just edited the article to show those numbers. I tracked down the edit that changed 2,778 to 2,777 but the total number seems never to have been correct.Neonorange (talk) 00:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the inconvenience - I thought the section above my original placement looked odd for a talk page! Neonorange (talk) 02:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. We all err. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Mustafa Shameel article
Hi, I'm new to making articles in Wikipedia and I mainly wanted to test the article on my grandfather (Dr. Shameel) not knowing that it cannot be deleted after testing how it works since I was planning on taking it off after seeing how things work on Wikipedia. Although, I want you to delete the article and I will make sure it will be in my own words from now on. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rashmi Khaliq (talk • contribs) 21:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh alright that's great! Thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rashmi Khaliq (talk • contribs) 22:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Lusaka Voice
Hello NatGertler. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Lusaka Voice, 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. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

PROD of Keven Santos
Hi Nat. Thought you might like to know that your prod on Keven Santos was deleted by the page creator - albeit without any explanation/comment. Anyway, I have now taken it to AFD if you are interested in contributing.-- K orr u ski Talk 11:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Nathan Finch Ballard
Hi NatGertler, I'm asking you to withdraw your speedy deletion nomination. I wasn't aware the article had been created previously, but I did just review the deletion discussion. It appears the initial article was very promotional in nature, which is one of the reasons it was deleted in the first place. I have completely rewritten this stub in a very dry and encyclopedic way, which should disqualify it from the g4 criteria which says that the article is "substantially identical to the deleted version" and "any changes do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted". As I don't have access to the earlier version of the article, it's impossible for my rewritten draft to be identical. But I know the existing article is not promotional. Anyway, I hope you take my request into account, and review the g4 criteria. Thanks CitizenNeutral (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I will not been removing the nomination; while I don't have access to the original article, I can see from the deletion discussion that the previous deletion was essentially for notability, based mainly on the same claims made in the new article, and that the additional claims in the new article are to minor references to the subject.
 * You are, of course, free to contest the deletion, by going to the page and clicking on the button marked for doing so. May I suggest that, if you do so, you do so with scrupulous honesty? This method of stating to me that you weren't "aware the article had been created previously", when your edit summary for creating it in the first place is "restoring deleted article with new content", makes it difficult to assume good faith on your part. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Nat, I've already contested the deletion. And it appears there is confusion. There now two (deleted) versions of the article that have been created: Nathan Finch Ballard, the article which was deleted as g5 and that I attempted to restore, and Nathan Ballard, which resulted in the deletion discussion that I had not seen. Please note the difference. I hope this clarifies your comment about scrupulous honesty. Have a good day! CitizenNeutral (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

@Nat: FYI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Whisperback
00:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Quick Question
Hey Nat, I am the guy who created that Dean Andrew Kantis article. I'm sorry for adding the contentious material twice without a solid source. The doctor filed a lawsuit again DAK. The lawsuit is on a website LasikFDA, but I cannot add a link because the website is blacklisted on Wikipedia. Can I use this as a reference for adding the fact that DAK was treated by Nick and that afterwards the latter sued the former. You gave a good Simpsons example, but I am not sure if this source can be used or not. If you want to take a look at the lawsuit, I will upload it to Wikipedia and you can see it. Thanks for the help.Muhammad Ali Khalid (talk) 10:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Muhammad, I'm glad you asked.
 * Lawsuit filings are inherently problematic as reliable sources. By their very nature, they are designed to show one side of a contended issue.
 * Relying on a copy of a filing form a blacklisted site seems to compound the situation, as sited tend to get blacklisted for having been involved in some sort of sketchy behavior.
 * BLP problems can be caused by creating implications by mixing material from sources. Consider these two statements:
 * Homer was the man in Bart's room.
 * The man in Bart's room stole Bart's Butterfinger
 * Now, we may say that only #1 is a BLP statement, and thus that is the only one that needs to be so rigorously sourced. Let us assume for this case that it is, that it's been directly reported by the ever respectable Springfield Post-News. However, the placement of #1 and #2 together create the clear implication that Homer stole the Butterfinger. We have a problem when we're making any new unsourced statement by implication. We have an even stronger problem when #2 is not rigorously sourced, when all the sources are telling us is that Bart says that the man in his room stole his Butterfinger.
 * There are a number of things in the article that have that sort of sourcing problem; I only chomped enough to take care of the severe WP:BLP problem. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response Nat. It's pretty clear. About the resources in that article, I will check them again, see the Wiki guidelines and try to improve them with time.Muhammad Ali Khalid (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Sourov0000. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, DMM FX Australia, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Sourov0000 (talk) 20:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Renzo Gadola Redux Redux
I've been learning a lot. You're the first person to get me to dig into what constitutes a proper bio for a living person. I'm going to make one more pitch (cite a couple examples of similar people, talk about my idea of a "Big" Wikipedia that is based on browsing to come up with new knowledge which is how I found out about Gadola in the first place), but it seems that a consensus is emerging (that it should be part of a larger article; your comment on "Coat Hanger" is teaching me a lot, as well as your constructive feedback). Can I ask you to extend the debate for one more week? I will respect your (and the others') ultimate decision. Your role here is not to be a teacher, but this is a learning experience for me and will improve my efficacy as both an editor and a contributor. Thanks!Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Shemplet: I may have launched the deletion boat for the article, but I am no longer the one steering it. The question of whether discussion will be held over for another week will be in the hands of some third party, who takes a look at the article and sees the state of the discussion. So far, absolutely no one has stated that the article should be kept... including yourself. As such, it would be hard for the reviewing admin to find any reason to extend discussion. If your goal is to keep the article as is, I suggest you add an entry to the discussion that starts with the word Keep in bold like that and then goes on to explain why the individual meets WP:GNG, and if possible why the concerns of WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIMINAL. But if I were you, I'd be looking at the fact that this biography is solely about his relation to this USB situation (there's nothing about how he was raised, his other jobs, his family) and start thinking "this is really an article about the USB situation", and if there should be an article about this situation (I am placing no judgment on it one way or the other, I have not done research toward that end) it is best to use this as a base. In that case, instead of asking for a keep on this, I would be adding a message to the article that says Userfy so that I might use this as a base for building an article on the USB scandal.
 * Think about it this way: you asked what if someone wanted to know about Gadola in the future. Is there anything that leads us to believe that they will want to know about him except in relation to this crime? If not, wouldn't the best place to put this information about him - which is solely about his relationship to the crime - be in the context of an article on the crime? --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Once again, thanks for the feedback. It will enable me to do better work in the future! It seems like the best course is for it to be part of a general article on UBS tax evasion (there is a similar article about their rogue tradings scandal.Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 15:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your effort to improve Wikipedia, and for taking this all in the spirit with which it was intended. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes! It has been a real learning experience! I will have questions for you in the future about bios.Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

degree verification
I've paid for the National Student Clearinghouse to verify online with a pdf from my alma mater my degree, which is currently not shown on the page about me (Steven L. Thompson). I can provide you the email address and Order ID you need to get to the verification so you can change the listing properly to credit me with my BA, since someone saw fit to take it down. Please let me know if you'd care to do that. Ttrider87 (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Ttrider87Ttrider87 (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Nat.

No, I was involved in a near-fatal collision with a car on St. Margaret's Road in Annapolis at about 8:38pm on 27 May 2004 and am permanently crippled. I write for Cycle World frequently (see my article on pioneer motorcycle racer (first Yank at the TT and almost won it! in the Oct issue in Racewatch, for example), and my riding is only possible on three-wheelers. I bought the 2010 Can-Am Spyder RT-S we had for long-term CW test and ride it to test riding gear (like the recent online review of a Dainese Racing Pelle jacket, for instance) and just to have what fun I can. I officially gave up racing in 1992, and held an AMA Pro Expert International Racing license at the time. I just tried to upload a photo of me on my 350cc Shepherd-Kawasaki GP bike to the Wiki page but don't know if it worked. My friend Gordon Keown, who shot many good photos for me when I edited C/D, Road Test, and Cycle Guide, as well as for CW when we went back to the TT in '87, did the photo in Oct. '71 and went online to the Wiki site needed and gave me the license, which I'll upload to the required place soon. Dunno if the photo even got up yet.

Anyway, thanks, and good riding to you!

-- Steve Thompson Ttrider87 (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Ttrider87Ttrider87 (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but the article Chitwanix_OS is an article of a Software
Hello NatGerler,

The article Chitwanix_OS must not be deleted because, it is an article of information of the software which is Open Source. We haven't written it as an promotional or any vulgar activities. So, please don't remove the article !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyasi.arun (talk • contribs) 03:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

SPEEDY DELETION
(Note: The following was posted on my user page; I have transferred it here to my talk page. --Nat) Wikipedia has sunk to a new low. I've been working on publishing a short article on Kasey Lansdale's new record and I've just started in less than 30 minutes to ago and I'm already being bombed with speedy deletions. At least you fascist book burners could do is wait until the article is complete. I've been editing Wikipedia for a few years so I'm no newbie. Things have really gotten out of hand with all these threats being made with the anonymity of the Internet. One one hand Wiki cries out that it's slowly dying and needs to be revitalized by attracting new editors and urging current editors to contribute more. Yet this is the bullshit people have to deal with and it's not a big secret that these actions are discouraging. I'm really on the vergo of just hanging it up. Nice Job!!! PKDASD (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The difficulties in establishing a new article are why we recommend that new users construct new pages in their private space, get them ready to go, and then transfer them into main space. I'd be glad to help you set up a page in private space, if you wish.
 * The page was over an hour old when it was marked for deletion, and at that point was a very short paragraph that didn't look like it was being updated. Would you have been any less frustrated to have expanded it into a longer article, only to have it deleted then?
 * When you see that an article has been nominated for speedy deletion, while I understand the desire to lash out, it is likely to be more effective if you post on the talk page of the article why it should not be deleted. As it happens, when you posted this message on my user page, the page had not yet been deleted.
 * I am unclear what you're alluding to with "all these threats being made with the anonymity of the Internet." As far as I can tell, no threats have been made; all that was done was editing of Wikipedia. Nor was anything done with anonymity; my name was placed on the call for deletion, was placed on your talk page to notify you on the deletion, it was on the page that you edited to place this complaint. The editor who actually deleted the article did so using his first initial and last name, and his user page has a link to a page that gives his full first and last name. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean "lash out". While not "newbie" I still don't have a firm grasp as to follow the protocol as to go about justifying the validity of an article. I've run into these situations more than once. The vast majority of my articles have not been an issue. I also understand the reason Wikipedia has to be monitored to prevent abuse and conflicts of interests. Nothing personal, but it tends to be a human response to become upset when an article someone posts is rejected before the article is even complete. I'm not going to remove myself from editing Wikipedia, bit I also realize I have a lot to learn. Any tips would be welcome. BTW I still do need to add and hopefully improve the Kasey Lansdale article. Again, no hard feelings. PKDASD (talk) 00:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it. By the way, what lead to the speedy deletion turns out to have been a simple mistake... you made a typo in the name of the artist (something you later did in the title of your replacement article; I've corrected that, as well as a few other fixes on that article.) With no sources to go off of, it looked like this was an album with no claim of notability for an artist who didn't have a Wikipedia page, which qualifies it for speedy deletion. The new article could not be speedy deleted on those terms, as Ms. Lansdale does have an article, as you well know. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Best PKDASD (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Mass transforming into gravity
I have taken this to AfD because it has been in before and PRODded, and I explained WP:NOR to the author then; taking it to AfD means that it if he then persists in re-posting it can be speedied. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Quantel Lotts
I have removed the prod tag from Quantel Lotts, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks!

Hi Nat, I've removed the deletion tag you placed on the article I recently created, Quantel Lotts, after reading the notability guidelines you suggested at WP:CRIMINAL and thinking about the issue. Obviously I thought Lotts' case was significant beforehand, since I wrote the article. Nevertheless I think the series of articles written by The New York Times and The Guardian particularly highlight the way in which Lotts' case is seen as emblematic of the problem of life imprisonment for juveniles specifically, and for the treatment of juveniles more generally in the U.S. judicial system.

Following your tag, and reading the guidelines you referenced, I'll work to make those links (following the NYT and Guardian) more explicit. -Darouet (talk) 02:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The Quest for Juice
I have removed the prod tag from The Quest for Juice, which you proposed for deletion. I am leaving this message here to notify you about it. Regarding notability, I've added links to sites which mention it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to it. Instead, feel free to list the article at Articles for deletion. Thanks! Jaydeecw (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Your Well Wisher
Respected NatGertler, It's me Nannadeem, I could not understand copy past? please tell me. I wanted to place my some points but there appears a lengthy news paper page. After a reply from you I would place my arguments, as per your advice on my talk page. thanks Nannadeem (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Nannadeem: First off, someone pasted material from the article's Talk page into the article's Articles For Deletion discussion. When another editor deleted this pasting, I put it back in, presuming that it was you who had done the initial pasting (whoever had done it was not signed in). I apologize if that presumption was in error; please let me know if it was not you, and I will delete that addition.
 * If you wish to add new arguments for why the page should not be deleted, go to the article's Article For Deletion page Editing it is much like editing any page here - click the "Edit" link at the very top of the page to open it for editing. Go to the bottom of the content in the page, add a new blank line, then start by adding
 * *Keep: This page should not be deleted because
 * then add your reasons why it should not be deleted. Before you do this, I suggest you read this article, which will explain the process that is going on here and how you might best work for it being kept. Your arguments should ideally be put in terms of Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
 * Be sure to follow your message with a ~, so that your signature appears on it.
 * I hope that that answers your question! --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Nannadeem (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC) Thanks for prompt reply, sorry me replying late. All ok but please delete word apologize. Please do what you think better for me, based on neutrality. I know you have good soft heart in your chest. I have seen your face and page - a little, would see in detail, laterNannadeem (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As you have seen by now, it is too late; the Article For Deletion discussion was ended early by invoking WP:SNOW, which is a commonly used argument in cases where the vast majority and the clear application of policies and guidelines is toward a certain outcome. The article has been deleted, and editing the discussion any further would be both pointless and forbidden. Perhaps it is best that you find some home outside of Wikipedia for your writings on evolution; if they have enough influence that they are reported on by reliable sources, perhaps someday we'll have an article about your writings. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?
I'm sorry Nat, you are one of the two people I had a disagreement with and then offered me advice. When I found out that truth is not a requirement I really wanted nothing to do with editing on Wikipedia anymore. We have already discussed this. I feel without truth that Wikipedia will never be what it strives to be. Yesterday I am looking something up on Google and sure enough there is a Wikipedia Article. I click on the article, my account shows up and my notification icon is red with 1 in it. I look at it. It says "I have raised concerns about some of your edits". I read through until I see my posting name and read " and Gibco65 (talk · contribs), an account that appeared for the sole purpose of !voting "keep"." Now not to dispute what you have written but you wrote " so he raised the possibility of yours being an inappropriate so that the investigation could be followed through on. " I'm sorry but that's not the way I read his quote. " and Gibco65 (talk · contribs), an account that appeared for the sole purpose of !voting "keep"." is not that he raised the possibility, it is a an outright accusation. There is no other way to interpret it. While Bob was on his witch-hunt he accused me of making an account to vote Keep. I even was part of a sockpuppet investigation. First I'm a meatpuppet and then I'm a sockpuppet. It seems to me that in stating my opinion all that happened was I was called puppet names. What is it with Wikipedia and puppets? There seems to be a strange fascination. I did state "You did stumble upon a "editor" that listed his services for money. That is the one thing that I will give you credit for." which was not exactly a compliment, there is a hint of sarcasm in there. Another thing that bothers me is "I believe that Gibco65 & Rogerdavis101 are also socks, brought in to !vote "keep" when a couple of the promotional articles went to AfD." which is something I just found out about. These are not suspicions at all, they are outright false claims. When I went to bobrayners talk page, it seems he has a lot of issues with a bunch of people. Basically I feel he owes me an apology. My only cause in throwing a tantrum was to clear my name from a outright lie. He didn't raise an eyebrow, he smeared my account. This is why I want nothing to do with Wikipedia. I find it amusing, I see mistakes all the time but hey if I have an opinion I'll just keep it to myself. It's been a month and what was a AfD discussion on Notability all of a sudden became an article with serious neutrality problems. Bobrayner is all over the place and during his witch-hunt he found his witch, Muhammad Ali Khalid. He gets a one week block for offering to write on Wikipedia for money? What would be my penalty if I told Bob what I really thought of him? With you I threw a tantrum and later apologized, my reaction to this blatantly false accusation was actually pretty calm. I'm sorry but I really feel he owes me an apology. The guy might be the keeper of the watch but he accused me of pretty much being a shill and liar. He didn't raise that possibility, he outright said it. Anyway regards and have a good holiday, the Christmas stuff is already up in the stores. Gibco65 (talk) 05:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I can certainly understand your interpreting "appeared" as meaning "came into existence"; I hope you will understand that I'm reading it as "became visible" (if I write "mountains appeared in the distance and I drove down Route 73", it does not mean that I believe that the existence of the mountains was caused by my driving in that direction). But even given that interpretation, I think your request for an apology would've been more effective if it hadn't included a rather lengthy (and at times internally inconsistent) attack on his motivation.
 * I will note that Bob having people in conflict with him on his talk page is not a particular sign of being a bad editor; the best editors will have that on their talk page (most often because not everyone is working toward the main goals of Wikipedia; good editing will put you at odds with folks who wish to make Wikipedia a platform for advancing their own ideologies, products, or services.) In Bob's case, a quick look at some of his editing history suggests that he is doing a lot of editing in topics related to recent wars, and those are nigh-inherently filled with editors who have a strong point of view.
 * And to be clear, MAK was not blocked for editing for money (editing for money is currently allowed, although there are currently discussions afoot to put limits on that), but for actively trying to hide his conflicts of interest in doing so. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I do have one more question. What does Gibco and Rogerdavis are Unlikely to each other exactly mean? I do not know Rogerdavis or of him. What exactly does "Unlikely to each other" mean? Gibco65 (talk) 14:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * What the "Unlikely" statement is is a result of checkuser investigation, which is a technical system used to check whether two user accounts are actually the same person. I don't think they publicly state the exact items that they are checking on (don't have time at the moment to verify that), which would make sense because you don't want to give people a road map on what they need to do to game the system. However, it's pretty clear that they can look at the internet header information generated when a user does their edits... if two users are both coming from the same terminal, taking turns logging off and on, then yes, you can say they are the same guy (there is some chance it is two people who coincidentally are taking turns on a terminal and happen to be editing the same topics, but it is proof enough for Wikipedia) - that's the Confirmed status. On the other hand, if you find that the two users in question are logging on at the same time on different continents, then you can certainly say that those two are not the same person, proven (that's the unrelated status). I cannot say for sure what the criteria for "unlikely" would be, but I assume that it's that it is not absolutely disproven that the two accounts are from the same user, but there's no real indication to suggest that they are. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank You for your guidance. Once again my response was inappropriate but really I thought this was all settled almost a month ago. You are right about Bobs talk page, parts of it look like a war is going on right on his page. I should have looked at the actual discussions, I really don't think he is a bad editor. I was just sick of getting called another puppet name. I realize he was just doing his job. As for paid editors, I feel that is wrong. Basically IMO that would take away ANY respectability of Wikipedia. An example: Someone has been an editor since the beginning. I think they move up to administrator after so long. They understand every rule of Wikipedia and can guarantee that what they write will stay up on Wikipedia. They can make a good living doing this. That's what it would come to. Who will pay the most for their services. I'm pretty sure this goes on now to a lesser extent. There are people that I have met that have great Wikipedia pages. They are borderline advertisements. After speaking with these people I am convinced that do not have the intelligence to have written their own page. Now that you explained that there can be paid editors, I'm 100% sure that some pages that I know have been written by editors. I didn't even know what the investigation was about, I really thought it was about MAK getting paid. Look Bob has apologized, I have apologized and hopefully this whole thing is finished and nobody's feelings got hurt. I'm over it and yes I do get quite defensive when I am accused of things I didn't do. Hopefully nothing comes up in the future because this was all over my first edits. I want nothing more to do with this. One article, three fights. That's enough for me. Anyway Thanks Again. Gibco65 (talk) 04:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

More and more deletions
I see that keeping Wikipedia pure is your speciality. There will be a lot of angry people out there who will never edit Wikipedia again as a result. Tuntable (talk) 04:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=581791244 your edit] to MatchWare may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * |concern = Does not meet WP:CORP - references are all discussions of the individual products which don't go to notability of corporation per WP:INHERITORG, database listings, or

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Susan_RoAne_%282nd_nomination%29
You are invited to join the discussion at Articles_for_deletion/Susan_RoAne_%282nd_nomination%29. Benboy00 (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

== fuck it all, life sucks/why I am 99.99% certain that the End is THERE (11-21-14) (take your time to read, if you dont have these extreme concentration issues like me (only possible to read it if you dont have them, from neuro), because of neuro) ==

my problems have become too overwhelming even though i have friends in very close proximity who have the same problems (its the only reason why i hang on), and these problems are so bad that no one has it worse, it hurts equally to burning alive--78.156.109.166 (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC) but he that hath endured unto the End is the one that shall be saved--78.156.109.166 (talk) 19:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC) but i dont believe the End will come before im out of my medicine, it will come after, and thats a very long time to wait still even when i have already endured for 24 years... the explanation is a long story from god... basicly he sends "Ends" or judgments after im out of terrible suffering, he did that in 2009/10/11 when i was suffering the worst possible physical pain (much worse than the worst possible mental pain)... but this time the earthquake will be a whopping 21.11 (if not 21.11, then about 21.11, but certainly the biggest earthquake ever (9.6+) and most likely over ca. 15.0 or 12.0, and the earth will be split in half because my suffering is much longer/bigger (bigger because it's longer, its about the same suffering as i underwent in 2009(which was withdrawal burning alive pain), the bigger/longer (this time its bigger cuz its longer even though the pain is about the same) the suffering, the bigger the judgments.--78.156.109.166 (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC) actually i think i am gods ONLY elect, thats why all this, all others must be judged that they allowed his ONLY elect to suffer so painfully and so long, but i dont fully understand why the judgments come after the suffering, but i have a really strong feeling that all this is true, im 99.99% certain. i may be the only chosen angel or real angel all others are doomed. maybe i am god. this is the best tidbit of information ever imo, because earthquakes have such a strong role for our salvation (the End) and have such a strong role generally (so important).. bible says great earthquakes must be a sign of the End, of the coming of Heaven. also luke 21 11 says great quakes and i believe thats a sign that 21 11 14 is the end, also why i say the quake probably be 21.11 in Magnitude... other signs are we are in the 21st century... (i mean all this sincerely) most popular doomsdays have always been on 21st... may 21st 2011, oct 21st 2011, dec 21st 2012, and finally nov 21 2014..... its a strong sign... see the connection between which century we're in and doomsdays always being on the 21st? thats a sign/connection/sign-connection... another sign is i was 21 years old when doomsday began... on May 21 2011.. and ends on 11-21-14.. bible says doomsday is 42 months... and that time period fits... this is not talk inspired from insanity, i took my time to carefully write this, even though neuro destroys my soul (makes it really hard to concentrate, at least i cant hear (because of concentration issues from neuro) anything someone tells me if its not really simple, but i can concentrate better on reading (but still very hard), and much better on typing, as you see), its the whole story--78.156.109.166 (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC) what will you say if im right about all this, or at least the worldwide/great earthquake coming (i know i forgot to say it will be worldwide, but if its that big, one does not even have to say it will be worldwide)--78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC) one thing you can check to see if im right: it will be the greatest ever--78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * While I am sorry to hear that you are in pain, I am not really the one to come to with your end time theories; I do not view the _Bible as holy or predictive. May your world improve. -Nat Gertler (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I am posting this partly because we talked on the 2011 rapture page. im just a big loser and i should probably top myself. but i hang on because i know that if i top myself, satan gets his wish. and because i believe (i say believe because it feels like im the only one here on earth (that feeling sucks, trust me; feels like there's lots of darkness and evilness inside me (cant be explained better than that)) and the only one suffering so painfully (or the only one suffering, iow) i have people with me who are suffering as much as me (same drugs, even). i just have nothing better to do. i sit on wp all the time when im on the internet, or yt, or usgs (rarely), or rivalball (rarely). i just had to share this with someone because i cant share it on any other website (only have access to wp, yt, usgs, livequakemap, rival ball, armorgames, but i cant log into yt)--78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC) I think i made good word/sentence-choices, esp. word-choices. btw, the people here dont give a sh!t about anything or my problems, they have their own hells to deal with, so what makes you think they'd want to care? they are very very very strict and harsh and unfair. >:C

important bit: thanks for your reply and support important (just for you, not more important than the other text otherwise (<<<-good wording?)) because you need to know i dont write and receive an answer for nothing--78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC) i believe I understand, but why _Bible? Believe me, the end is THERE. satan make me feel like my life/i is/am not good enough, like theres something missing, like i feel tempted to do what i want. i forgot something more i wanted to write--78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The _ before Bible was a mere typo. I had a long night, am tired and busy and not precise, and cannot continue this conversation. I do heartily suggest that you find someone near you to talk with. Not that all things always get better, but sometimes time will allow you to see other, good thing that you are overlooking. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have the nov 21 prediction from benjamin christen--78.156.109.166 (talk) 19:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC) i also see now (not before now) that the closer we get to the gr81, the smaller the earthquakes get which is also a sign--78.156.109.166 (talk) 19:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

ZenDay
You PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Andrew Orvedahl
Just a heads up, but it's been undeleted after a request on my talk page. Feel free to take it to Afd if you like. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

February 2014
Helo NatGertler I have been in contact with one of the wiki editors Chris user (CTF83)

Here is the message I sent him (see below).

I have now also sent him the citation to update the content (i.e., revert back to the original format) and he said he would do it.

Dear Wiki Editor

I am curious why you changed the revert of edit I had made. I made the revert to ensure the factual accuracy of the article. I am not sure why Lesion made the revert. I am the inventor of the IVB, it is my lab that pioneered it and this borne out by publications, a patent disclosure I made to MIT and the key patent with me as the lead inventor. These are the facts. If you disagree with the facts that add a comment but altering the facts because you are unaware of them is unethical and wrong.

(VPShastri (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)) CST 6:07 PM

Citizens of the World Charter Schools
What do you think about the article for Citizens of the World Charter Schools now? I've pretty much decimated its previous version, but I'm really not sure that it passes notability guidelines as a whole. I did find sourcing, but some of the ones I found are kind of inbetween usable and non-usable. If it is kept then we'll have to both watch it for any potential promotional editing and removal of content, since the coverage they have had has been almost entirely negative. I think that might of been their reason for creating such an overwhelmingly promotional article in the first place- not only has the reception been negative from prospective neighborhoods but their attendance has been fairly dismal. In any case, keep or not keep? If you think that it'd fail GNG we can always revert back to the promotional version and just speedy it as puffery. Or take it to AfD and let them decide on the strength of the sources. I'm kind of undecided overall. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   11:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear NatGertler

Yes I am new to wiki as a contributor. As I told Ian Frust, I was trying to set right the facts. Ian Frust's changes are not substantiated by facts. The scientific content of the paper is fully reference by four citations in land mark journals. It is not clear to me why anyone can just change something because they feel like it provide substantiation for the change, I mean if Ian feels the content is not correct then the burden is on him to show scientific literature. The one he refers to is not even accurate. So how can we go about correcting this?

(VPShastri (talk) 06:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)) February 26, 2014 CST 12:43 AM

Please relax
There's no need for you to argue your case; your wikibiopage is in good shape and sharp Wikipedians as well as the less-than-sharp ones (moi) are watching it and (collectively) know what we're doing. I wonder if the frivolous types who put it up for deletion are motivated, in part, by seeing your (over-) reaction? Please focus on creating the cool stuff you create. Just advice from a Jersey handyman.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm very relaxed, and simply amused by the puppeteer who put it up for deletion. Believe me, I was having a big chuckle about being that media mogul! Thanks for your attention to it! --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Ways to improve Chris Samnee
Hi, I'm Carriearchdale. NatGertler, thanks for creating Chris Samnee!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please choose some appropriate categories near the bottom of the article to help improve the overall article and make the article more easily searchable by wikipedia users. Thanks!

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Carriearchdale (talk) 05:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Yes most of the note is pre-written. I usually do stay at least about three days or more away from the creating date to avoid tagging an article if an editor is in the process of working on the article. The queue skipped over to the current date somehow, so you do have a great point. So sorry for the mishap.

Ciao!!!

Carriearchdale (talk) 06:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Yank Barry. Thank you. --  At am a  頭 16:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Re: refactoring comments
I am censoring Roscelese's comments because she did the same thing to me, but no one is warning her. An eye for an eye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.87.149.194 (talk) 06:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Artist's Edition, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Manhunter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Krause, F&W, GD
I've written for them, too, which title did you write for?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well that was easy, I just googled your name...do you know anything about the old Charles Addams comics (source of the Addams Family)? I have always wondered if there was a collected book with all of those old comics in it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've responded via eeeeeeemail. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:BravadoGroup


A tag has been placed on User talk:BravadoGroup requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free Web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Vishal Bakhai - Works 19:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I had in error added the Speedy to that page. I have now removed the same. Apologies for this mistake. Also, thanks for letting me know. Oh and please update any comments on my talk page for this. Danke. Vishal Bakhai - Works[[Image:Flag_of_India.svg|15px]] 19:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=609306081 your edit] to Citizens (film) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Monty Canawati]] and based on a story by Alex Monty Canawati and Grigoris Daskalogriorakis . The fourth film by the director of Inevitable Grace and Return to Babylon.

David Sehnal
Page now redirects to Czech Republic' Sinologists. I agree that more notability has to be generated.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 16:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

That funfunfun letter you received about "that" article
After having my editing being willfully misunderstood by the SPAs and also having my personal character being persistently attacked by them, I decided to walk away and not edit the article or post on the talk page but I do have to ask if I am one of the editors named by the "Law Corporation". Thx, Shearonink (talk) 22:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

FYI
See Talk:Yank_Barry#Lawsuit_against_Wikipedians -  Cwobeel   (talk)  01:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Modern Future
Hi NatGertler,

I wanted to reach out to you to have a discussion about the deletion of Modern Future- aside from removing your template I didn't see how I could go back and forth with the editors that want the page gone.

Production companies seem to be in a bit of a grey area in terms of music notability. You're right - this page likely doesn't meet WP:BAND but hey, it's not a band. If you can't count credits toward a production companies notability there's not a lot else you can use - these people make the music but they're a pretty silent partner most of the time and labels and artists take the credit. I think notability as an organization would be more appropriate and since there are numerous second hand sources mentioning the company's work I feel it would pass notability.

Furthermore - I don't understand how pages like Frisbie (music company), Capellen Music Production, Ishlab Music or many of those listed Category:Music production have pages with little to no references and a company like Modern Future making music for many notable acts and w/ over 9 referenced sources doesn't warrant a page.

Again - hope to have a conversation with you about this page and would appreciate knowing what could be added to help pass notability requirements. Thank you.

PingreePark (talk) 00:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * There may well be other pages out there that should be marked for deletion, in fact, I can almost guarantee there are. Music is one of the places where we most get people trying to promote their own selfs/groups/companies through Wikipedia... which is a really bad idea.
 * The sources that you are using wouldn't seem to meet WP:ORG, our notability guidelines for companies and organizations, any more than it meets our guidelines for musical acts. Credits in a credit listing do not amount to the "significant coverage" that it calls for. As odd as it may sound, qualifying for a Wikipedia page has less to do with what you've done and more to do with whether the proper folks are talking about you. Does that bias Wikipedia in the same way that the rest of the media is biased, more likely to talk about actors and musicians than even the finest janitor? Yup. But those are the guidelines we work with.
 * Working with notable acts also does not inherently make you notable; see WP:NOTINHERITED for that guideline.
 * That doesn't mean that Modern Future won't have what it takes for a page some day; we certainly do have pages for folks best knowing for the record production. If they get some coverage, get some awards, things like that, sure. But merely having credits is simply what it takes to be a record producer, and record producers are not inherently notable. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me add that it is clearly not just my opinion. During the Article For Deletion discussion, only two other editors besides you and I voiced their opinions; both called for deletion. The administrator who was reviewing the discussion also judged for deletion. With the article in its new form, two additional editors have voiced their opinion, one by endorsing the PROD and the other by calling for a speedy deletion... i.e., both calling for deletion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response - I'll wait until they get coverage of the company on it's own (outside of credits) or an award or the sort before relisting. Although we disagree on this particular article I appreciate what you do. PingreePark (talk) 18:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for understanding, and please rest assured that my stance on the article is in no way personal; it is not a comment on your editing in general, nor for that matter a comment on the work of Modern Future, which I have not experienced. It's merely me trying my best to implemented the Wikipedia standards as I understand them. I, too, have had articles that I created deleted; it's part of the process. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Comic (publishing) company vs specialist publishing firm
Hi, the article about yours truly talks about "[your] specialist publishing firm called About Comics", About Comics says [...] publisher of comics and comics-related material. Is there a difference, is both to be used interchangeable, and which do you prefer? Regards. 82.113.106.203 (talk) 09:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it makes much difference. About Comics is a publishing firm firmly rooted in comics; like many comics publishers, the line includes some things that are not comics but are related to comics, although thanks to the success of things such as Panel One (a book of scripts from which comic books have been drawn), the related-to comics category is a bit bigger portion of my sales than most. (And to confuse things further, About is now also publishing some things that are only vaguely related to comics, such as the novels by Robert Mayer and Sol Weinstein being released under the Combustoica imprint, although comics-related is the clear bulk of our sales.) Of the two, I'd probably prefer "publisher of comics and comics-related material" (it's clearer, and "specialist" should probably be "specialty" in the other phrase anyway); I'd be fine with that or "comics publisher". But I have not real problem with either; if your goal is to make sure the two articles match, don't worry about it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Since I read both articles one afteranother, I just wondered about the different wording. So it's "publisher of comics and comics-related material". Thanks for the reply. All the best. 89.204.139.71 (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Gary Gauthier
This deletion is likely to be controversial, do I de-prodded it. Please go to WP:AfD for further directions. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Joey Ziolkowski

 * Hi NatGertler! I understand what you are saying. However, the PROD was placed by Piotrus in the article Joey Ziolkowski explicitly mentioning
 * "Joey Ziolkowski|concern=The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (biographies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..."


 * Further, the PROD was reverted by IP 184.81.34.30 whose contributions are dubious. He seems to be related to the person Joey Ziolkowski. CCed on my talk page. Cheers! 7Sidz (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've responded on your talk page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

jon platt
hey, thanks for the message! i'm new to this, but i'll do my best to do it like you just did. sorry for the inconvenience. DetroitRed X (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Usually
You added "usually" to:

A person coming out as trans is usually not making a change in their gender. You're saying usually, which means that sometimes it is false. Any situation where it is false?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * There have been people who have transitioned and transitioned back. By the logic that transitioning means that they always were what they became, we are left with a conundrum. It is likely not an issue in the vast majority of cases, but we should not reject folks simply for being in the minority. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Will Hayden and Sons of Guns topic ban proposal for User:9711CA
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --DHeyward (talk) 20:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)