User talk:NatGertler/Archive 4

Proposed Deletion of My Article Jennifer Mundel
Hello. I new to Wikipedia and I have been creating many new articles. You said you will delete my article because it is not notable but I only created it because I saw it in the list of articles that needs to be created urgently on Wikipedia. I also notice that the french version of the article is avaluable online https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Mundel. Are you saying that an article can be notable for Wikipedia French but unnotable for English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulabcie (talk • contribs) 00:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, yes, different language Wikipediae can have different notability requirements. Additionally, what I had to judge your article on was what was presented in your article, and once I eliminated the claim that she had won 3 US Opens (which would definitely have qualified her under our notability standards, but appeared to have been false), there wasn't enough there to meet our notability guidelines at WP:NTENNIS. I do not read French, so I cannot fully tell from the French article whether there is enough there to qualify her (under either the English or French guidelines.) Having said that, if you object to the deletion, you can simply eliminate the PROD tag from the article; at that point, if I wished to see the article deleted, I would have to go through the more cumbersome Articles For Deletion (AFD) process, and get agreement to it. So my suggestion to you is that you review WP:NTENNIS, and if you feel that this player meets the standards there, go ahead and delete the PROD tag from the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have redited the article and removed the deletion proposal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulabcie (talk • contribs) 01:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The Wimbledon information should protect it from any deletion attempt! Good job! --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Archive
I tried archiving my page but am not sure if I did it correctly please can you assist me to look at it.Ulabcie (talk) 00:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for saying thanks
Appreciated.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Edison Partners Deletion
Hi,

Thank you for your speedy deleting of the new page I created for Edison Partners. They are a very large and notable Venture Capital Firm and are notable enough to be on wikipedia. I just created their basic page with the intention to add additional info and sources later. I am new to wikipedia. I would appreciate your help on how I can recreate this page with the proper info that it won't be deleted again. Thanks. DNYC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnyc (talk • contribs) 14:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * DNYC, if you need help with your article Edison Partners, write on my talk page but I am busy for the next few weeks. Wikipedia has a learning curve, takes time to master, and I can't make any guarantees that your article will stick, depends on sources. I may be further motivated to assist you if you make a small donation to the Wikimedia Foundation but again there are no guarantees about any article remaining in Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Rabbi
I saw [your edit] removing the title "rabbi" from the first sentence of the Eliezer Melamed article. Please understand that "rabbi" is both an academic title,which indeed per WP:CREDENTIAL should not be used in the opening sentence of an article, as well as a honorific related to clergy, which per WP:HONORIFIC is used in the opening sentence of articles. It is customary to have "rabbi" in the first sentence of articles about rabbis. Debresser (talk) 16:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you reread WP:HONORIFIC; despite what you say, it specifically advises against including honorifics for clergy in the titles. ("In general, styles and honorifics should not be included in front of the name, but may be discussed in the article. In particular, this applies to: [...] styles and honorifics related to clergy".) --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Since you decided to take this to the talkpage of that article, I have replied there. Thank you for reacting so promptly. I will un-follow you talk page now. Debresser (talk) 17:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

of interest
your AfD of SPURS (band) was quietly blanked by a COI user. there's a new AfD for it where i mentioned the earlier blank of your deletion-nomination. you oughta weigh in on the new one, yeah? Cramyourspam (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit war
Since you the one that redirected Alifazal to the talk page, I would like to inform you of this. AcidSnow (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your assistance. AcidSnow (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Difference between Consensus and Majority vote by established editors
I have been going through the mechanism of arriving at consensus during AFD discussions on Wikipedia, one thing I have noticed is that it is simply being executed as majority vote by established editors. If there is a discussion and 5 established editors supporting a notion while 10 others opposes it, it is always closed in favour of the majority. I interpret it to mean consensus is not really about quality of argument raised but democracy where the electorates are established editors. What I want to know, is if this is actually how it is meant to be?Ulabcie (talk) 12:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Wonder if I might offer my thinking here? The way AfD discussions are supposed to work is not by democracy but by consensus, that is, contributors are supposed to try to reason with one another, posing arguments for and against deletion, answering each other's points, debating but listening while debating, and with enough people (hopefully) willing to abandon their prejudices and trying to detach themselves from agendas. With luck, it is supposed to be less of a debate between two hardened sides (hardened in the sense of contributors who have made up their minds before the debate, and won't change them during the debate) but rather a reasoned discussion between impartial participants. While there is a democratic element involved, in that it is relatively easy for a closing administrator (playing essentially a judge) to tally votes, and choose based on the tally, in an ideal AfD discussion, the closing administrator tries to weigh the arguments, and see if the group has, indeed, settled on a "consensus". What has a huge role in the process is established rules -- precedents in a way, written down (themselves constantly being revised) which function as a kind of body of law -- and when contributors debate about points they often refer to these rules or guidelines as reasons buttressing their arguments. Further, while in a technical sense all contributors are equal, in practice there is greater weight usually given to the arguments made by established contributors, partly because they have been participating longer (and know the guidelines better) and partly because other established contributors know that the others have been around longer, and have learned over time to have greater respect for their judgments. That's how it is supposed to work, generally, but in practice there are numerous problems, such as a few contributors who are highly partial to having an article in Wikipedia, mistakes made, honest disagreement about sources and guidelines, occasionally sockpuppets, and so forth. Whoever the closing administrator is (sometimes they're closed by non-administrators) can obviously have a huge impact on the decision, and in my experience, sometimes their choices seem incorrect. They can disagree with the majority, and they can agree with the majority even if the majority is wrong, but in my experience, again, these situations do not occur that often (but they do happen). There have been judgments made which I thought were plainly incorrect. Closing administrators, after all, are people just like everybody else, with particular biases and leanings. But, overall, my sense is, that over time, the decisions made have enough fairness that the community has come to respect the process, and in my experience, sub-standard articles do tend to get weeded out, and the quality remains, and the AfD process is flexible enough in many instances to account for unusual topics in terms of content, or unusual coalitions of contributors commenting on the discussion. In conclusion, AfD discussions are a process, imperfect with flaws to be sure, but which usually functions competently, and I can not think of a better one to replace it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what examples you're looking at. AFD, like many human things, is a flawed but better-than-not process (flawed both in process and implementation). Many of the decisions do rest not on some bright-line guidelines, but on things that are fuzzy and subject to evaluation: what source is "reliable", what coverage is "significant". In such instances, the person closing the discussion may not be in any better position than the discussers to judge one side as being correct; on things such as that, the preponderance of the views of people who understand the terms that it is being evaluated is a reasonable form of consensus. The closer should be in position to judge whether the discussion is taking place within the concerns that should be used to evaluate AFDs. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe I now have a clearer understanding on how it operates. Appreciate d feedback, wud b back for more clarification if any arises. Ulabcie (talk) 23:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Galerie Gmurzynska
Please see User talk:EdJohnston. Since you filed one of the 3RRs I am naively hoping you still maintain an interest in this article. You are an experienced editor and are unlikely to be part of either faction, so I'd welcome your input on my talk page. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Revision of the page: Delete Skype History (software)
Seanwud (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC) Hi Nat, thanks for the review of my first article Delete Skype History (software). You marked it for deletion :) As I understand the reason was that the article body contains a reference to the program web-site. I've removed the reference. Can you please review the article now? Should I revise something else?

Galerie Gmurzynska
Regarding the edit war with Art&Design3000, "independent researchers" do not copy material from commercial websites (the gallery's own) and present it as neutral, reference material. I refer you to your original flagging of this material, where you identify it as boastful and self-serving. There is a history of legal disputes involving this gallery, including a huge VAT case that is ongoing. These have been referenced in an objective way, citing independent secondary sources. Examples of "unproven and subjective" material are not given; all of the stories mentioned are cited in multiple published sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grammophone (talk • contribs) 12:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your message, on the contrary I re-edited the Gmurzynska page in a way that takes account of administrators' remarks, including your own suggestion of a sub-heading 'Investigation'. Galerie Gmurzynska attempted to restore its self-promotional version using a new IP address, presumably to conceal the source of the edit, to which I alerted Bbb23. His response you can see on the history: (cur | prev) 22:12, 20 October 2014‎ Bbb23 (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (7,912 bytes) (0)‎. . (Protected Galerie Gmurzynska: Edit warring / content dispute: resumption by IPs (same person, different addresses) ([Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 22:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)) [Move=Allow only autoconfirmed use) (undo | thank)

[COPY OF MESSAGE SENT TO Bbb23's TALK PAGE] A third IP address is being used in order to suppress material this organization wishes to keep hidden - Andemw3 (see previous edits and undos of the reliably referenced material by this username). The latest edit is, to my mind, simply a continuation of the edit warring in this regard. Spurious grounds have been found for removing most of the (to them) undesirable material by misusing the WP:V and WP:BLP tags. Other material has simply been deleted without explanation.

The referencing by Art&Design3000 (and his other identities) is also highly dubious. The references to the promotional material don't seem to have any actual connection to Galerie Gmuzynska (if they do, this should be clearly identified) - see footnote 3, for example, a highly dubious claim and link to an article in which I cannot see any mention of the exhibition in question. There are also instances of willful misquotation of the published sources. For example, 'Antonina [Gmurzynska]appears to have sought out the artists' families in Russia and became adept at sneaking art out of the country' has been changed to 'Antonina 'sought out the artists' families in Russia and was moving this art out of the country, to Europe', so that a documented case of smuggling sounds like an act of charity.

As such, I am reediting again in what I believe to be a balanced way that reflects the published sources properly. I welcome Administrators' views on what I have written here and am happy to engage with them in producing a satisfactory version. I have not engaged in Talk with Art&Design3000 and his aliases because I do not see that as having any potential to produce an accurate version of the gallery history, given the editing methods it uses.

SusunW
Thanks for your encouragement. I have no bloody idea if you will get this message or even how to reply to you. I was trying to find out information on the decade old Cherokee Nation same-sex marriage case and the entry was so scant on Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions that I updated it. Then I realized that a lot of other info was in need of updating, so I forged ahead.

Same thing happened in August when I was seeking information on Recognition of same-sex unions in Mexico. Took me a while to figure out how to update the page (most of the entries since August are mine as 187.252.94.51 is also me. I don't really know how to use Wikipedia at all. Attempts to be adopted or join the LGBT group are frustrating, as I cannot figure out how to do it. I research for a living, so documentation is my strong suit. But this format is a bit unwieldy. If you have any suggestions on how I can better use the program, help would be appreciated. SusunW (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)SusunW

Okay, I'm confused. First off, it looks like I am having a conversation with myself. Is there not a way that both of our messages appear on the same page?

As a researcher, a primary source is technically much more valuable than a secondary source, at least from a legal perspective. I am not finding many secondary links, however. It is not particularly likely that these laws will appear in news sources unless there is some controversy, as in the case of the Cherokee. It may take from now until forever to work through them all, as according to the Bureau of Indian Affairs there are 566 recognized tribal entities.

What does "Mark this page as patrolled" mean? SusunW (talk) 05:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, we can have the conversation on either your page or mine; I merely posted back on yours because I wasn't sure you'd think to check mine or know how to add it to your watchlist.
 * As a legal researcher, you can probably point to things where you can quote a line of actual law where what it says when read literally is not actually true, because that part of the law is adjusted or addressed by other legislation or by court ruling. We count on competent secondary sources to provide context.
 * When a new page is added to Wikipedia, we like someone with Wikipedia's interests in mind to take a look at it, and to flag it if it's, say, just an ad, or an attack page, or other things that don't have a place in Wikipedia, or if there are substantial problems with the way the content is presented. Marking the page as patrolled keeps it off of the list of new pages that need to be patrolled. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. As I said, I have no idea how to work Wikipedia. Anything you want to edit, please feel free. :) I have no idea how to add something to a watchlist nor how to reply on my page so that you know I did. I am truly grateful for any assistance. SusunW (talk) 06:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Deprod List of feminist comic books
I have removed the prod tag from List of feminist comic books, 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! There are numerous sources that discuss feminist comic books, comic books with feminist characters or feminist themes, and the articles Further reading section lists three. Lightbreather (talk) 01:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Priya's Shakti at WP:RSN
I have started a discussion about Priya's Shakti at RSN.

--Lightbreather (talk) 22:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:GoogleInfobox.tiff
 Thanks for uploading File:GoogleInfobox.tiff. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:GoogleInfobox.tiff


A tag has been placed on File:GoogleInfobox.tiff requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the Non-free fair use tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

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. Ironholds (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Notability
Yes, you have a point.

See also this and this by the same editor. (The second certainly is "notable", in a way: see this, for example.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:GoogleInfobox.tiff
 Thanks for uploading File:GoogleInfobox.tiff. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:GoogleInfobox.tiff
 Thanks for uploading File:GoogleInfobox.tiff. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:MarieCurieKnowledgeGraph.tiff
Thanks for uploading File:MarieCurieKnowledgeGraph.tiff. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text   below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Focus on the Family
Edit was reverted due to the IP editor being suspected as a sockpuppet who has a COMMBAN on them and as part of a WP:RBI; that was the main reason for the reversion.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 17:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Age
I am sorry, my math was off. I have reworded the note to better reflect the controversy and added her to the age controversy category. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Top Ten Comics
Nat, as discussed in earlier posts our company, Historic.us. exhibits U.S. History primary sources all across the United States. I learned to read on comics and we have been exploring the idea of exhibiting significant comic works that once produced, the course of the United States History was changed. I would be interested in your short list of outstanding comic works that changed the course of history. Thank youStas.klos (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * A tricky question, and I will not claim to be a specialist in American history (I would have a much easier time listing comics that had a significant impact on the field of comics than on the wider world in general). Plus, part of the question comes down to definition of "comics". With those caveats, and quickly off the top of my head (I do have deadlines looming):
 * If your definition of "comics" covers political cartoons, then we have to look at things where political cartoon symbology helped simplify or clarify a conversation. With that, we'd be looking at things like Benjamin Franklin's Join, or Die and the cartoons of Thomas Nast, looking particularly at the Tammany Hall work for immediate political impact, as well as the lasting symbology of the Republican elephant and his take on Santa Claus (although with Claus, there's obviously a longer, convoluted story to how America got that view on it.)
 * Mad Magazine, which changed the nation's viewpoint by having a very cynical, very critical comic book read by the younger set (in its wider sense, including the college folks), predating and arguably paving the way for That Was The Week That Was, The National Lampoon, Saturday Night Live, and so forth.
 * Action Comics #1, for introduction of the superhero (arguably not the first superhero, but this was clearly the one that had an impact); the cultural impact of that today can easily be noted simply by looking at recent box office records. The launch of Superman also gave an internationally-recognized symbol with a particularly American bent to it - it is, at base, the tale of an assimilating immigrant to our... I was about to say "shores", but he managed to skip the shores and land straight in Kansas.
 * "The Yellow Kid" for introducing the ongoing newspaper comic strip.
 * "Peanuts" had an obvious huge impact on the comic strip (any humor strip of the past 50 years that isn't influenced by Peanuts would have to be specifically and intentionally avoiding that influence) and has earned a place as a lens through which we view other things (how many political discussion are couched in such phrases as pulling the football away?) It obviously has plenty of direct leaks into other media, into our space program and such, although it can be argued that much of that is more decorative than actually changing matters.
 * I'd best get back to meeting some writing deadlines; I hope that that provided at least part of what you were looking for. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your hard work here, exactly what I was looking for and a foundation for a great exhibit. How do you distinguish between political cartoon types? - i.e. A Cartoon by Mad (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/37/b9/5f/37b95f727f8ed2c363ab4fcef532ec57.jpg) versus the ones found in newspapers (https://ricochet.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/clayton.jpg) versus Superman capturing Hitler (http://www.supermanhomepage.com/images/comic-covers/Pre-Crisis-Covers/1942/adv017s.jpg) .   Are there recognized genres in comic history.  For instance, what about Seuss' work during World War II.  Would they be lumped into the political newspaper Category Cartoon (if such a genre exists) or somewhere else because he is a children cartoon book author (http://www.tufts.edu/programs/mma/fah189/2004/babula/art/images/milked.jpg).   How would one organize an historic exhibits of American Cartoons/Comics for a meaningful exhibit.   My first inclination is into cartoon/comic types but if I am going to include a broad spectrum, it might be better including cartoons/comics that had a major impact on human events and organize the works around the historic events?     Stas.klos (talk) 05:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The view of comics is generally divided by the different forms of publishing and tradition they come from. When I say "political cartoons", I'm talking not in general of comics with a political slant, but specifically the editorial cartoon. It's a form that has traditionally meant less to entertain than to illustrate (these days, they are often expected to be humorous, but that's not been true for most of their history.) This would cover the work of Nast, Herblock, Oliphant... and yes, Geisel (Seuss). Many cartoonists bridge different fields of cartooning. But that category doesn't include, say, daily newspaper strips, even when they have a political bent - newspaper strips are their own form, and while there may be some overlap which will discuss editorial cartoons alongside, say, Doonesbury or the more political stretches of Pogo, those things are still generally recognize to be part of the newspaper strip.
 * Mad is seen as part of the comic book family. It was launched by a company otherwise known for horror and science fiction comics, and was originally a traditional comic book in format (although its odd history sometimes makes it seem as an exception within the comic book field.) Magazine cartoons - now most commonly seen in the New Yorker, but formerly a larger part of a healthy magazine field - are their own grouping. Children's book illustration, again, a separate field. The graphic novel is seen as an extension of the comic book,
 * As I said, plenty of people skip among the various forms. There are also plenty of items that aren't quickly simply categorized. (With my publisher hat on, I recently reprinted the JFK Coloring Book, which actually spent some time on the best-seller list a tad over half a century ago, really political humor aimed at adults, drawn by one of the Mad artists, but not quite within any of the traditional categories.)
 * As to how one would organize a museum show, that is likely beyond my expertise. Shows are more likely to be organized around one type of cartooning, or around specific time themes were the breadth of material being thrown at a single theme (like, say, cartoon depictions of Hitler, and how they changed as the US entered the war. By the way, were you aware that Captain America was actually battling Hitler before America was battling Hitler?) Were I actually called to curate such a thing, I'd probably want to organize it more around nature of the impact than around the item... in part, because I find things more interesting when seemingly disparate items are shown to have a link. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Gail Monaghan Wikipedia
Hi there -- got your proposed deletion of this page, but am not sure whether you saw the references at the bottom of the page and in the page itself. Am unsure why the page was tagged for deletion. Would like to try and understand... [references below, which the page was tagged because it didn't include?]

References[edit] Jump up ^ "YouTube - How to Make Homemade Ice Cream: Cooking Confidential w/Gail Monaghan". youtube.com. Retrieved 2014-04-19. Jump up ^ "The Chew - Gail Monaghan's Crown Roast - The Chew - YouTube". youtube.com. Retrieved 2014-04-19. Jump up ^ "A word-of-mouth success - NY Daily News". nydailynews.com. Retrieved 2014-04-19. Jump up ^ "11.13.07: The Easygoing Epicure | New York Social Diary". web.archive.org. Retrieved 2014-04-19. Jump up ^ "Year's Best Food Books Offer Charm, Common Cold Relief, Sundaes - Bloomberg". bloomberg.com. Retrieved 2014-04-19. Jump up ^ "The Best Cookbooks of 2010". publishersweekly.com. Retrieved 2014-04-19. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColombiaJefferson (talk • contribs) 05:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The answer to that is simple: the page was tagged before those references were added, as you can see if you look at the revision of the file right after it was added at this link. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Historic.us Corporation
Understand your reasons for the deletion, I am the founder which was made clear on the earlier post releasing copyright information to Wikipedia. Not sure what to do to make this company eligible for a Wikipedia Page. Currently Historic.us Corporation has an exhibit at the Villa Antigua Border Heritage Museum, 810 Zaragoza Street, from January 21 – February 24, 2015. “America’s Four Republics: The More or Less United States,” for Washington's Birthday Celebration, which is just one of 16 that we have done in the past four years. List includes Carnegie Institute, Clara Barton House, Fort Pitt Museum, James Madison's Montpelier, James Monroe Foundation's Birthplace, MGM Grand Las Vegas Hotel, National Collegiate Conference, NY Hilton Hotel, Smithsonian "The American Presidency: A Glorious Burden”; Thomas Jefferson's Monticello, Waldorf=Astoria, DNC & RNC Conventions, LA, VA, WV, & U.S. Capitol exhibitions, New Orleans Mint and a host of Universities and Colleges. Perhaps this talk page will generate some interest in someone putting-up a Historic.us Corporation page since I have been deemed ineligible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stas.klos (talk • contribs) 18:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am replying on the posting user's talk page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Re. Bob menendez
Wanted your opinion on this : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob_Menendez&oldid=654572367 I want to add headers to the controversies section and remove the recently added lead-in, specifically:

On April 1, 2015, Menendez was indicted on federal corruption charges related to favors he did for Florida ophthalmologist Salomon Melgen and gifts he received from him, including campaign donations and private flights. Melgen was charged as well. Menendez has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

It was reverted once so wanted to get a second opinion before I continued.

Jdphenix (talk) 03:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the material certainly needs to be at least broken up... but really, it may need redistribution. The essay at WP:CSECTION makes a case for avoiding "controversies" sections altogether. However, I do feel that his current situation is sufficiently of import to why people are likely to look at the article at this point that a mention in the intro is reasonable. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't realize there was specific guidance regarding this specific kind of section. Thank you for the link and insight. Jdphenix (talk) 04:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Focus on the Family
I agree marriage equality is a loaded word and should be removed. I'm not really political on these topics so it was not my intention. However, the parts on creationism, their view on sex ed, and others should stay. I am restoring WP: NPOV right now. Thanks for your thoughts.

Boredandwilledit (talk) 22:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Do not remove other editors' comments from AN/I
Please read WP:TPO. BMK (talk) 03:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You may wish to read that yourself, as it points to personal attacks as something that should be removed. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Marie-Ange Faugérolas for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Marie-Ange Faugérolas 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/Marie-Ange Faugérolas 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 notice from the top of the article. Edcolins (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Bingham
Part of the reason that I removed those links is the solicitation for donations. Other than those websites I can't find any details of the organisation those donations are supposed to support. WCM email 14:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hokay. I was merely responding to the edit summary. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So are you OK with removing them now? WCM email 18:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't reviewed all the links, but I don't think we should be removing all of them. Having some link for the person or their work is normal, even if that link is commercial in nature (author's websites that include sales links for their books, for example) so long as it isn't solely commerce. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * My concern is this website, it is soliciting for donations for the Organization for the Conservation of Penguins. Here there is an impressive list of organisations that are members  but if you check out their websites, none link to this page.  The other two sites and this one are linked together and all link back to the same individual not any organisation.   It may well be legitimate but is raising enough red flags for me to suggest removing all 3 sites as a precaution.  I'm concerned enough to suggest that we should perhaps take this to WP:ANI for wider community input.  WCM email 18:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Mark Regnerus article
I have made a comment for you on that article talk page, would look at it and respond? Thanks 24.92.249.215 (talk) 00:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Craig Miller (writer) has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Craig Miller (writer). Thanks! FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  19:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frank Schaefer (minister), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The View. 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) 09:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Apologies
Hi Nat - I feel like I owe you an apology for my behavior today. I didn't act within the high standards I set myself. samtar(leave me a message) 21:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And I apologize for being more blunt about the way the situation looked than was called for. You seem to do a lot of good work, . --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Craig Miller (writer) (August 11)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sulfurboy was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Craig Miller (writer) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Craig_Miller_(writer) Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sulfurboy&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Craig_Miller_(writer) reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sulfurboy (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Wonder if a search strategy such as this one might yield better results.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Parkdale public school
Although I agree that Parkdale public school should likely face deletion I had to decline the speedy nomination as schools are not eligible under WP:A7. I'd recommend taking it to AfD. -- Non-Dropframe   talk   03:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Galerie Gmurzynska
Hi NatGertler. I've been editing the above article- just wanted to assure you that I'm keeping things as neutral as I can. The sources aren't particularly good- the "Baz Luhrmann" bit in the Miami New Times is basically a puff piece for Baz and his wife. All the best Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 09:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion proposal for Joey Camen
I got your message about the deletion proposal for Joey Camen. If you want people to speak against this, we need an articles for deletion page for it. --Rtkat3 (talk) 14:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

This Thursday: Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Getty Center
You are invited to join the Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Getty Center in LA on October 15! (drop-in any time, 10am-4pm)--Pharos (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

November 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=690010391 your edit] to Jerry Falwell 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) 19:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you

Home page edit
Well, this is actually true. Quackers reviewed Home on October 4, 2015, and he said the same words that I have edited, so undo your edit.


 * No. The mere fact that you did something on the Internet does not make it therefor suitable for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. If you wish to promote your work, there are plenty of outlets available for you - Facebook, Twitter, Instragram, Myspace, and so forth. I suggest you check those out. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Can you still advertise other wikis on Wikia?


 * I'm not 100% clear what you're asking. If it's "can you use Wikia to advertise other wikis?", I don't know, you'd have to check at Wikia. Wikipedia is not a Wikia site. If your question is "cam I use Wikipedia to advertise wikis that are on Wikia?", the answer is no, Wikipedia is not intended for advertising or for promoting your own projects, as discussed here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh.

Hello
How are you?


 * I am having a good day, and I hope that you are as well. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I am.



Hey
What do you think of my sig?


 * It certainly is fancy. I find it both hard to read and distracting, but that's me; I'm not much into the fancy sig thing. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Is it creative?


 * That's for you to decide. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, what do you think, then?
 * Well, what do you think, then?

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Easy Listening Satanic
I do have a page on my facebook from cdbaby.com that is mine and that features my usic if that would be acceptable. The music store address is www.facebook.com/My-Work-299717706707277app/470868196288052/ and there is also a website called www.thereverendmusic.com that refers to the music Easy Listening Satanic. My question is would this suffice? ''(posted by to my user page instead of my talk page; moved here by me.)
 * I'm not sure whether you're asking whether this will suffice for keeping the Easy Listening Satanic page on Wikipedia (for which the answer is no; the question is not whether your music exists, it's whether the genre is notable... which in Wikipedia terms usually means it's been noted by vital reliable sources), or if you're asking whether promoting those pages will help you get the most visible spot on search engines, (in which case the answer is "could be, depends on who links there"). --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I also posted a link to soundcloud. And on a secdond topic, I noticed that there was a history section and, well your flattery was quite well received sir. In the interest of this new genre, will wikipedia remember the history and what I(we) have done here today? Will it be looked after and maintained in any case?

The Reverend
 * When the article is "deleted" (and it almost certainly will be, although you still have your chance to make your case at this page), the page and its history will be removed from public view, but a copy of it will remain on the Wikipedia servers; administrators can look at it if there's a need. However, copies of it will likely appear on other services, such as this page (which lists me as the "author" of the page because of some bug in their system.)
 * The deletion discussion will remain publicly visible on Wikipedia, but pages like that are not generally indexed by the search engines, if I recall correctly; someone has to know where to look for it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Rocky De La Fuente for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rocky De La Fuente 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/Rocky De La Fuente 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 notice from the top of the article.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Jack London entry
This entry is authorized by and maintained on behalf on the subject. No information therein is copyrighted. Photos are provided by the subject and subject is aware of any copyright issues. Please refrain from deleting any material. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alumzsh (talk • contribs) 20:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You appear to have some confusion about the site you are on. This is not LinkedIn, here to host resumes. This is not a place for officially maintained approved biographies. Mr. London has a corporate website where presumably he can put up whatever he pleases. As for claims that what you are posting is not under copyright, you may wish to discuss that with Mr. London's company, who indeed put a copyright notice on the page that you appear to be copying, at times with close paraphrasing, at times word-per-word. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I work for CACI and completing an authorized update to his entry. His entry is intended to be a brief sketch of his professional accomplishments and personal history. The use of phrases from his corporate bio is intentional, both for consistency and convenience. His official bio/resume had been referenced originally. If it has been removed, it will be referenced again. Photos are also authorized for posting. Thank you for your concern about copyrighted material. There should be no need for you to make any further changes or tags. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alumzsh (talk • contribs) 21:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "Authorized update" makes it sound like this page is supposed to be under Jack London's control. It is not. Corporate bios are not appropriate source for most material, as they are not reliable third-party sources. Falsely claiming that the photos are your own work is inappropriate. We cannot ignore copyright concerns simply on your say-so. For information on how the company can grant permission for Wikipedia to use their work, see Donating copyrighted materials... however, even doing so would not be proper source for the sort of material you're including. And you should note that I'm not the only person who has been trying to keep that article from becoming an inappropriately-sourced hype page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Robert McClenon (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC) This notice is being provided for the sake of completeness because a thread was opened, but I am recommending that it be closed as reflecting a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works, with a caution to the filing party. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Cowhide anteaters
I want to be paid by cowhide anteaters :-) Guy (Help!) 12:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, who wouldn't? I mean, I never have, but obviously I was thinking about its wonderful possibility! --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Aegon Life Insurance Company Limited
I see you've tagged G6 to make way for a move - should I withdraw my AfD nomination? -- samtar whisper 14:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As I noted at the AfD discussion, since it was a cut-and-paste recreation, the problems with the new article also probably apply to the old one, AEGON Religare Life Insurance. If so, you should probably bundle that page into the AfD, rather than stopping the AfD. I don't have time to review it myself at the moment. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've bundled it, thank you --  samtar whisper 16:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Craig Miller (writer) concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Craig Miller (writer), a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Nat I wrote a sci-fi fantasy novel
Jakk's Journey is about a high school boy who builds a spaceship, flies to Betelgeuse, meets sexy aliens, has adventures, and learns how to become a human (the theme). It's a fun romp. I'm curious what you might think about it; my hunch is you might like it? It is here on Amazon.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, congratulations on that, getting a whole work done and out is an achievement. It's likely that I will not get around to reading it, as I get around to very saddeningly little book reading that isn't business or family obligation these days, but may it find all the right audience! --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks but still, I really think you'd enjoy it. Really. Or if you have a kid who is in college, he might like it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

delete United Airlines
Why not make editors prove that article. There are over a dozen citations easily available for Jet Naked. Just because people hate sex doesn't mean you should take that fight to wikipedia. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tough sailor ouch (talk • contribs) 17:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Jason Rapert WP
Hi Nat.....

I attempted to add a reference to an online video posted by MSNBC back in 2013.... I am pretty new to WP editing, and must have done it incorrectly.. my bad. It appears I am no longer able to edit anything on the page. Sorry for my errors... is this something you can do? The section I wanted to edit was one you just edited:

Position on reproductive law Main article: Fetal heartbeat bill § Arkansas Rapert authored a bill to ban all abortions in Arkansas after twelve weeks of pregnancy.[5] In 2013, a federal judge stopped the law from being implemented, saying it was likely unconstitutional.[6]

I would like to add somewhere "Senator Rapert garnered nationwide attention on the issue when Rachel Maddow from MSNBC News picked up the story. (referencing the following link: http://www.msnbc.com/.../arkansas-gop-struggling-to-keep...)
 * We've locked out new editors on the Rapert page for a while because there's been a rash of outright vandalism going on. If you would like to make an edit, you can add I suggested edit on the Talk:Jason Rapert page. Let me suggest that the edit you suggest is not quite ready for prime time; referencing the Rachel Maddow show is not enough to show that the Rachel Maddow show coverage was important enough to include. We would also likely remove the "Senator" from the beginning, preferring to refer to people by just their WP:SURNAME once they've been introduced in the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, it may go better in the "External links" version than as a reference in the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Craig Miller (writer)


Hello, NatGertler. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Craig Miller".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the  or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing.  Onel 5969  TT me 15:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thornton F. Brodhead, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brevet. 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) 15:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Transnational child protection portal to-do list


A tag has been placed on Transnational child protection portal to-do list requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

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 "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. Stefan2 (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Come Out Swingin'


A tag has been placed on Come Out Swingin' requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

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 "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. Stefan2 (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

history
shows one editor's "concept" of the importance of WP:BLP alas. And far from the only such edit. Explaining some of the vitriol spewed at BLP/N, I think. Collect (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Deletion nomination of Bryan Caforio
FYI: Articles for deletion/Bryan Caforio. Champaign Supernova (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Joshua Copp: Random third-party thanks
I have this article on my watchlist and I appreciate your eviscerating intervention. The contributors' remarkably congruent usernames give me a sense that something fishy is going on in the City of London. For what it's worth, I'm well and truly middle-aged and secure as an XX-chromosome-equipped human being in pretty much all respects, but as an "out" female on WP, something about that article made me feel like I would be grandly abused, in a manner I don't have time for during this particular calendar quarter of my real life, if I tried to do that myself. I hate that you ended up doing it when I could have, for a jillion reasons but now REALLY, because I count Peanuts as one of the most formative influences in JDL history—and I'm absolutely not worthy (in the Wayne's World melodramatically genuflecting sense!) of bowing out of a content dispute because of a stench of malignant laddism and ending up being "rescued" by Nat Gertler! Thank you. I will keep an eye on this fertilizer heap myself and jump in if necessary now. All the best. - Julietdeltalima   (talk)  20:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Given that the two editors of similar names have only ever edited that article, and each only one volley apiece, I think we can presume that it is one person with a mission.... and so they may well return to their folly and you will get your chance! (Although I've flagged the page for attention at WP:BLPN, so there may be other eyes competing with yours on there.) While it probably should've been speedied when first posted as a clear attack page, it will probably just fade out of existence due to the WP:BLPROD. And you shouldn't be that impressed by being "rescued" by Nat Gertler; I put on my super-powered titanium exoskeleton one leg at a time, just like anyone else, JDL! --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * awww!! YOU, sir, DESERVE an extraneous Ti exoskeleton! Seriously, I'm not a young undergrad fanchild in any respect (my 25th college reunion is in June) but your userpage/kindness collectively motivated me to write "24-hour comix challenge!!" on a Post-It Note for the wall above my work desk, and maybe in the next few weeks I will take ~6 hours to draw one inept frame of that and send it to you as a genuine token of nearly tearful artistic appreciation!


 * But back to mainstream-colleague-idiot-parsing-land: This is a really intriguing gender-differential thing. I never in a jillion years thought that was an "attack page" outside Mr. Copp's control at all. The gold-Lamborghini thing may, for the love of all that is good and holy, ACTUALLY BE TRUE per semi-"mainstream" (and almost definitely non-Copp-controlled) media, heaven help us all, and so I took it as an unmitigated vanity thing, which is why I think we'll see this thing resurge once time zones are in alignment. (I went to law school with an equally laddish guy who now has a NASDAQ company, and he was not unintelligent and even he would have known better than to have pulled this kind of horsemanure... and, yet, one learns not to leave anything to the "oh, nobody would possibly be THAT moronic...' factor. To that guy's credit his WP mention isn't even redlinked.) I'm just happy not to be the only person looking at this. Onward and upward, mon copain!  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  22:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, but I think we may be seeing less a gender differential and more an experience differential, and the pilpul that may be used. One can certainly see the laddish claims there to be a boast ("He seduces lots of women, spends generously, and drinks like Hemmingway!") or a condemnation ("He's a drunken man-slut with no control on his spending.") It was POV writing, but which POV is dependent on one's point of view, curiously enough. But if it were flagged for being "promo", one could easily argue that it doesn't promote him, and shouldn't be deleted on that basis. To flag it for being an attack page, however, one merely needs to argue that it deliberately paints a picture that could reasonably be seen as negative, which makes it a BLP problem, and more likely to be deleted on that basis. Which one was the intent? I'm really not sure, and part of that is due to him being in the financial professions; the lifestyle that is given vast respect in the rock-and-or-roll world has traditionally been seen as far more suspect in a financier.... but that may be a dated view, for I am actually beyond my 25th reunion.
 * As for making comics - go, do it. Do it not for any making comics is important reason, do it because it is good to do a thing. There is value, I feel, in setting a goal, focusing on the goal, and possibly achieving the goal, even if the goal itself is not of value. This is the nobility of touting at the windmill. It enriches the soul, educates the spirit, and does something else good to some other ethereal part of you, I'm sure. (This is about as deep philosophy as you can expect from a middle-aged guy with over 1000 Snoopy books.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Glenn Marine Group and Fat Leonard scandal
I have left the first paragraph relating to the Fat Leonard scandal in the Glenn Marine Group article and have deleted the remainder of the content. This is a HUGE scandal and frankly should have had its own article a year ago or more. The Glenn Marine Group article is about that company, not about the scandal, so mention of the scandal should not violate WP:UNDUE. One paragraph should be enough to sufficiently summarize that scandal in the Glenn Marine Group article, without violating WP:UNDUE. Folks looking for information on the scandal can find it in its appropriate location. Safiel (talk) 02:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks! Typo fixed. Neutralitytalk 20:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)