User talk:NatGertler/Archive 5

Dr. Yaw Ansong Jnr
I am not the creator of that page; I moved the page that was created there. Flaw in the patrol system, no worries. — swpb T 14:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Tan Sri Low Yat listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tan Sri Low Yat. Since you had some involvement with the Tan Sri Low Yat redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 05:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning
Hi NatGertler. I am a relatively new editor. Can you help me learn what it is I did that caused you to revert my edit? Thanks! sheridanford (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)kyraocity
 * Let's see... your addition basically said "Following an article in The Guardian about the Wikipedia debate over gender labeling, one Wikipedia editor said thus-and-such." The problems with this as an addition are:
 * Your reference is the article that supposedly caused this person to say this thing. As such, it is not evidence that the person said this thing, a claim which is unsourced. (Sourcing is important when making statements about folks who are still alive, particularly when placing them in a controversy.)
 * This is not an article on how Wikipedia refers to Manning, this is an article on Manning. What you added didn't really tell us anything new about Manning. It's not particularly relevant to this article.
 * There are literally millions of registered Wikipedians, and I would say that the number who have voiced opinions regarding the name and pronouns to be used when referring to Manning numbers at least in the hundreds. Given that, there was no visible reason why the opinion of this one editor should be given particular attention in article space.
 * Any one of those three concerns was enough to undo the addition.
 * I appreciate your putting your effort in to try to improve this encyclopedia, and hope this is a useful learning experience for you toward that goal! --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks and possible request for help.
Dear Nat,

Thanks for your edit to the Inner Worlds, Outer Worlds page. I'm very much a beginner to this community.

I replaced and would if possible like to keep the section and content you removed. I did remove the contested word 'Notable' from the section heading.

If there is anything else I left behind that fails to meet standards, I would greatly appreciate your kind assistance.

Many thanks.

With Gratitude, Bodhiji Bodhiji (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Latest bbc three shows listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Latest bbc three shows. Since you had some involvement with the Latest bbc three shows redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Tripod
Wikipedia article will be amended when Tripod goes back online. The whole of Lycos is offline. If Tripod goes back online for how long, it's been on and off for several years Dickie birdie (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Lycos
[] Dickie birdie (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Subscribers to Lycos have disclosed they will be choosing other domains when Lycos goes back online (if it goes back online, it stated it would be offline for only a "couple of hours" Dickie birdie (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * None of that adds up to the claims you've been trying to insert in various articles. Wait until a reliable source reports something; do not rely on your own original research. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful edits to Colleen McGuinness
I was going to submit this new article from my sandbox to new article review, but since they have a backlog I decided just to post it anyway. I really appreciate your helpful additions.

I stumbled across this writer because I wanted to do some work on 30 Rock related articles and stumbled across (what I think was) her missing bio. Just for the record, I am a fan of 30 Rock and Tina Fey with no connection to Ms McGuinness or anybody else in Hollywood. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Your edits to Northstar Commercial Partners

 * Dear Nat Gertler, I thank you for taking the time to follow my edits and contribute to this article. This is very much appreciated from me. As a new editor in Wikipedia, I will be happy to follow the advice of a veteran and learn from him. Please proceed as you see best for this article standing and appearance while including your own contribution. If the new updates are OK, I would appreciate that you accept them as they are. Again thank you for your contribution. WikiTest23 (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Holly Ransom
Hi Nat. Thanks for the new page patrolling; it's a very important job and much appreciated. If I may offer one suggestion, though: please hold off on tagging an article while the original author is still in the process of creating it. I realise one of the sources I've used in the article is a little close to the subject, but none of the others is, and most of what's in the problematical source is covered in other independent sources. It's also highly likely the article will look nothing like this when I've finished with it today.

Again, I really appreciate the NPP work. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

BLPPROD on Keven Santos
The BLPPROD notice quite clearly requires "at least one reference to a reliable source". Rather than labour the point I've renominated as G4 as the article has previously been the subject of an AfD. Regards, for (talk)  18:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've responded on your talk page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Gods Holy Days
Nat, hello. Today you removed several external links which were conscientiously and strategically added to enhance the user experience. I have many other websites, but this one applies nicely and provides rounded information for other users. I m not a spammer, but hard working American that has information to share with others on the topics which are available on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an awesome tool and I appreciate the website and the editors. I would appreciate if you would reconsider the edits for if I were studying these subjects, I would like to see other works. Please take a look at the site and see for yourself. There are several pages which fit nicely with the content in Wikipedia. http://www.godsholydays.com/

Also, I was actually correcting an old link, which was removed by you and your team. Please consider reestablishing the one for Tabernacles even if it is incorrect, I have added a redirect on the website. Thank you again for your consideration. Mkneisler (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have responded to this user on their talk page, where they posted a similar message. --Nat Gertler (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Abdullah Hakim Quick, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Islamic State. 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) 09:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Liberty Counsel
The page is seriously in need to updating with additions to more fully explain what the organization does and believes. You are interfering with the cleanup that is noted at the top of the page. If you think something needs to be moved to a different section, that is fine. But PLEASE stop deleting my perfectly acceptable work.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.185.242 (talk) 18:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

In addition, the sources are independent and reliable -- The First Amendment Center at Vanderbuilt U is one of them. What is the problem with that??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.185.242 (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I have responded to these at Talk:Liberty Counsel. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

COIN to ANI
I posted the stuff at ANI because the editor was edit warring. Here's the thread Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia Etiquette
Firstly, it was the formatting of my own comments I corrected on the Admin page because a bot thought I was boomeranging. All I did was put all my comments in order with the same number of tabs. And no, I did not use the page inappropriately. This was not a content dispute - I was being harassed on Wikipedia because of my professional life off Wikipedia. A user who supports skeptics like those who harassed my clients edited pages to remove mention to my professional endeavors from Wikipedia out of retaliation - they did not act in good faith their actions were harassment. That is why I went to Admin because they should not allow for other editors to make edits that are based on malice and then those editors rely on WP:COI to prevent the person they are harassing from reverting their edits --____ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathanbishop (talk • contribs) 01:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Responded on editor's page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Outing
I did what you said in relation to that Canadian Professor, trying not to use his name even in the title of the claim and I was accused of WP:OUTING. Why was Guy allowed to accuse me of things that were not true and yet I am in the wrong for making allegations I know are true? --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * By saying it was not outing because he typed a name, it makes it pretty clear you were outing through implication. Add to that that you presented zero evidence in your case except for expressing your feelings made your post a clear candidate for deletion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's it I've had enough. Keep your encyclopedia to yourself - it doesn't deserve to be associated with me in any way whatsoever. I have no interest in any website that is so blatantly biased against me. Whatever I do is wrong and whatever others do is right!! --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * " it doesn't deserve to be associated with me in any way whatsoever". You will hear no disagreement with me on that. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * When you are blocking websites and pages associated with me, even if it is others that want to share them, be sure to block this one. --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't do any blocking of websites. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * One of the admins on the COI Noticeboard said they were going to. You might want to recommend that any site ending in "crocels.com" be removed from Wikipedia. --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That is, to my understanding, how such things are generally addressed; the entire domain name is black-flagged unless there is specific reason to segment it. I will ping the admin in question - - so that he sees your comment. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There should be no reason to segment it. If Crocels and I suddenly fall within WP:RS and WP:Notability respectively I will be asking Admin to remove any content about us. If I and Crocels are not up to Wikipedia's standards now, Wikipedia will never be up to our/my standards either. Why do I need any involvement with Wikipedia when I am editor-in-chief and sysop of Crocels's content platform? --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have often told people that Wikipedia is a bad place to publicize yourself, that you'd be in better position having the top search result for your name be a page that you control rather than one where everyone else has not only as much right, but actually more right than you to edit the page about you. However, if you are expecting that you will be able to veto any inclusion of yourself, in my experience there has only been attention paid to that when there are matters of privacy involved. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit War notification
Please cease edit warring. At the very least, do not blank good edits. AManInWikipedia (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC) == Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion == Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.
 * Odd... I don't see any sort of discussion involving NatGertler at the edit-warring noticeboard. Shearonink (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait 5 minutes and you will. AManInWikipedia (talk) 19:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, this is gonna be a laugh! --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Re: "Wait 5 minutes" - I see...well, usually one files the notice at the appropriate noticeboard first and then notifies other involved parties. Shearonink (talk) 20:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmmmmm. I don't see any edit-warring.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

reply to Dag Detter's photo
This picture was taken by his partner and it has been sent to me because it has no rights attached and therefore is safe to upload with his blessing. Please can you let me know if you're going to leave it alone, I can get him to email you if I must but he's quite happy for it to be used... Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollyeighteen (talk • contribs) 14:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

American Family Association
Hello Nat and good luck with this. I did try, but I've got somewhat discouraged by the non-discussing person who keeps editing it to their PoV, which is apparently OK because they know the facts. I also tried for RPP but I am not logged in and I just messed up my manual editing attempt ~97 times in a row, threw my teddy in the corner, and have now retired hurt. So, as I say, good luck and thanks 82.34.71.202 (talk) 14:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I was just giving fair warning; one more round, and I'll be headed to RPP myself. Thanks for your efforts. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, and thanks, and you're welcome (respectively!) 82.34.71.202 (talk) 14:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The World Tomorrow Talk Page
I agree with you that the World Tomorrow are two different shows. I entered a new section explaining this titled "Trademark". Recently I was contacted by Gtaeicg. He contacted me via Facebook message and threatened a lawsuit, and said that that one was in the works with a lawyer in NYC. I was wondering if I could receive a statement from you if I'm taken to court. I'm not sure if I'm asking the right question here. I would like to know more on what you have been dealing with Gtaeicg. Is there a way I could contact you not on wikipedia? Thank youWwcg-archives (talk) 03:36, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If you look to the column on the left of this talk page (as with many user talk pages), you will see a link that says "email this user". However, I will note that (to the best of my recollection) I have been dealing with Gtaeicg on nothing beyond what you see on the talk page, I have no other involvement with the show or shows called The World of Tomorrow. If what you want is for me to restate what I found on my trademark searches, you obviously have access to the same information, and I doubt that having my own statement would carry more weight than simply presenting the information from the USPTO website. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:59, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I understand. I've made records. Thank you for the help.Wwcg-archives (talk) 06:23, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 2 January
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * On the Debra Haffner page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=757995300 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F757995300%7CDebra Haffner%5D%5D Ask for help])

Flying Bulls
Out of curiosity, did you do even a cursory web search of the topic before deciding to tag it for notability? The reason I added some references and the refimprove tag is because I did research to see if it should be a CSD. It is pretty obvious with even the most basic of searches that this is a clearly notable topic, and furthermore has met notability guidelines on the German Wikipedia. In fact, while the article does need more referencing, I think the 3 I added already are enough to satisfy notability requirements. Please review, and make changes as you see fit. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did a web search and a news search, and found mainly Red Bull-run sites, regurgitated press releases, and passing mentions. All that puts the notability in question. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Really? So none of these convince you of credibility (all of these are non-Red Bull-run, not press releases, and more than passing mentions):
 * Flying Bulls Guinness World Record attemptFlying Bulls pilot killed in crashA seperate Flying Bulls accidentA German article about the Flying Bulls violating German airspaceAnother article from a credible source regarding the India crash
 * I think all of these along with all of the Red Bull-run sources (not necessarily bad sources even if they are Primary sources because Red Bull is typically considered reliable, and is of course quite notable on it's own, lending notability to the teams they own, especially when the founder of the company specifically started this team), the hundreds of press releases, and passing mentions surely must convince you that notability isn't really in question here. I won't remove the tag if you're still not convinced, but I disagree. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Those links are helpful, but many of the other things you mention are not. Hundreds of press releases do not establish notability, as notability is only established by third-party sources. The linking to Red Bull does not establish notabilty; see WP:NOTINHERITED. Passing mentions do little for notability. But the article has a more fundamental problem - as the team already has an article. It may not need one, it certainly doesn't need two. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand all of that, but all of those things are circumstantial evidence of notability, even if not acceptable notability per Wikipedia standards. That's all I was trying to point out. The fact that it already has an article certainly does mean this has a more fundamental problem. I obviously didn't realize that at the time. Cheers. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just for my own later reference, I'm adding a note here that it turned out the the Flying Bulls and Flying Bulls Aerobatics Team turn out to be separate organizations, and with all of the above references being for the latter, they do not establish notability of the former. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks clarification
Hi. I thanked you for restoring the sourced material at the Catholic abuse page that for some reason the IP removes when he/she adds their data, not for removing their data itself which has some validity and is sourced. Maybe the IP isn't wording the addition well. Randy Kryn 15:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove their data. Look at my edit again; I kept both. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Then my mistake and apologies. Randy Kryn 16:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

ANI
Googles and Skypes? I could see Skype being a sort-of homophone for "kike". I don't understand what slur the Google part would be. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't make up their code; I'm not alt-right (gleefully not). Many of the traditional slurs for Black folk have either the oo sound (c--n), the g sound (the n word), or both (ji-ab--). But I don't know how much the sound-alike was the goal; primary goal seems to have been simply common words that could not reasonably be squelched. And folks like that like having their codes. (One of may favorite stories of standing up to such folks involves giving their codes to Superman.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ugh. Ignorance knows no bounds. >:( Thanks for the feedback. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The purpose apparently is to avoid racist-trapping filters at places like Facebook and so on. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

ACICS Accreditation
It is "ACICS-accredited", but the statement must be qualified to state that it is provisional and the institution must follow the Program Participation Agreement. Otherwise, the "ACICS-accredited" statement alone is extremely misleading. The question mark symbol for ACICS discusses the meaning of de-recognition by the DOE.

Source:

https://www2.ed.gov/documents/acics/ppa-provisions.pdf

Harrison College is preaccredited for a different accreditor:

Harrison College has applied for accreditation with national accreditor, Accrediting Bureau of Health Education Schools (ABHES) and on January 19, 2017 we received notice from ABHES that Harrison College met ABHES’ initial eligibility requirements and that our application was in-process. ABHES will be visiting Harrison College campuses in April and May 2017; following these visits, Harrison College will be considered for full ABHES accreditation at ABHES Board Meeting scheduled for July 19-21, 2017.

Source:

http://harrison.edu/about/academic-affairs/accreditations-and-memberships — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcf1291 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Many programm-specific accreditors require that accredited programs be included in an institutionally accredited school. If a specialty body accredits a program at a school, but the school itself is not institutionally accredited, the program may have professional value, yet credits will not transfer and students may not be able to receive federal financial aid.

Source:

http://www.collegesanddegrees.com/accreditation#programmatic

"CCNE may postpone an action granting initial accreditation or continued accreditation of a nursing program if any of the following conditions are present:

1. The accreditation status of the parent institution is subject to an action by an institutional accrediting agency potentially leading to the suspension, revocation, withdrawal, or termination of the institution's accreditation status."

Source:

http://www.aacn.nche.edu/ccne-accreditation/Procedures.pdf

Without institutional accreditation, programmatic accreditation can be revoked.


 * I don't think I've left the ACICS accreditation statement standing alone. And while CCNE may choose at some point in the future to remove their accreditation, as of now, they still list its accredited status on their website. The one thing that leaves me curious is that ACICS didn't list Harrison on their website that I could find. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Harrison College voluntarily withdrew from the ACICS on 3/6/17. They are currently seeking national accreditation with the Accrediting Bureau of Health Education Schools (ABHES) (see previous message above). They previously applied for regional accreditation from the Higher Learning Commission, but their application was denied and the current status is "Inactive - Withdrawn". Disregard the "preaccredited" status stated earlier.

Source: http://www.acics.org/commission%20actions/content.aspx?id=4946

https://www.hlcommission.org/component/directory/?Action=ShowBasic&Itemid=&instid=2911&lang=en — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcf1291 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, that explains its absence on the ACICS site. Well done. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

New book page - "100 Things Successful People Do"
I noted that you had reviewed this page that I had created of this self help book adding the notability box. I have found, sifted and then listed a range of citations from non-trivial/independent sources. Could you find a moment to review and verify that they demonstrate notability? Many thanksJaneBecker1974 (talk) 05:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC) Thanks for reviewing my work and spotting the couple of weak citations - I now assume this book page meets the notability guidelines for books and that I can pause editing it.JaneBecker1974 (talk) 17:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have not fully reviewed the citations; I looked at a handful, deleted a couple that were problematic, but the other ones I looked at were fairly weak tea - four sentence reviews, best-seller-at-a-single-retailer, things like that. I have yet to see the sort of in-depth coverage that crosses that "absolutely notable" line for me, but as I've said, I've not looked at most of the references. I've got other things going on. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Abby Johnson (activist)
The perennial, boring thing is back again. See also this on my talk page. All the best, JBL (talk) 02:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest
HI NatGertler, thank you for the welcome and advice. i am learning my way around and that was helpful. Based on your post I do have a conflict with regard to the Brand.com article so I will ask someone else to review it. If you can help i would appreciate it. My goal is not to add or edit anything but to have someone knowledgeable in Wikipedia standards, and is neutral review it. It has been highly vandalized over the years and today contains uncited falsehoods. It also lacks a neutral tone. If you can help please let me know — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeZammuto (talk • contribs) 16:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Suggest appropriate edits on the talk page of the article (Talk:Brand.com), where they will be seen by me and the other people on the article, who can evaluate their appropriateness. And, even though you may think it obvious, include with those suggestions a mention of your conflict ("I was president of this company, so I have a conflict of interest and won't be making these changes myself, but here are some edits I suggest...", something like that.)
 * The main history of the article over the years has been concerted attempts to turn it into a promotional article, with users using sock puppet accounts to try to push the changes through. Additionally, Brand.com used to advertise themselves as paid manipulators of Wikipedia (as you can see being discussed here.) As such, be prepared for editors to cast at least a wary eye upon attempts to remove material that may be viewed as casting a negative light on the company.
 * I look forward to seeing what you might have to suggest. (And as a practical recommendation, you may want to try working on some articles that you do not have a "COI" - a conflict of interest - on. Going through that might give you a working knowledge of Wikipedia culture that will help you understand the reactions you get to your edit suggestions, and may help you make requests that would be more acceptable.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Lee Ryder
FYI, I'm not sure if you can WP:PROD articles that have been in WP:AfD like you did to Lee Ryder. Though the question of if a successful delete resets WP:PROD eligibility is an interesting corner-case to consider. - GretLomborg (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

LGBT
Hi, I wanted to ask you whether you are broadly in favour or LGBT rights or take a socially conservative position? Thanks Contaldo80 (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

August 2017
Hello, I'm Me-123567-Me. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Universal Life Church have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Rather than revert to vandalism, put the correct number in. Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * False claim of vandalism rebutted here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Public wealth of cities
Noticed that you put a PROD on Public wealth of cities. I fully agree with this (I requested a speedy delete the last time the article was created), but think that sending the article an official Afd would be wise as the page has been recreated and PRODs are easy to contest. I would do this myself but you seem to be more familiar with the situation and I don't want to botch an argument. Cheers.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * While I agree with you in principle, at the moment my life is too full of actual paying work to spend the proper time doing a full proper BEFORE. So I'm taking the easy PROD, rather than tackling the AFD as well as addressing the copyvio concerns. Should that fail, I will take care of the AFD. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Zoë Quinn's PGPs
Hi NatGertler,

In the last several months, you've participated in a discussion on Talk:Zoë Quinn about which preferred gender pronouns to use in the article. So I thought I'd give you a heads up that I'm starting a WP:RFC to hopefully resolve this issue! You can find the relevant discussion here.

Regards. -- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 18:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Destructive Comments: Withdrawing from Wikipedia
@NatGertler:

I don't know what's going on here. You seem to prey on my contributions and suggest them for speedy deletions. No matter what I do to improve them or which source I deliver. Admittedly I am new to Wikipedia and truly believed that I could contribute to this project. But this experience leaves me truly disillusioned. It appears to me as if some people want to turn (or keep?) Wikipedia into some sort tightly-knit old boys network would decide over everything, maybe not so different to the editorial board of the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

It seems to me that some people want to shut me down for whatever reason: copyright infringement - unfounded, promotion - unfounded, advertising - unfounded and so on. Well, unfortunately these people have succeeded: I will no longer contribute anything to Wikipedia after this entirely destructive experience.

I believe that this is exactly NOT what Jimmy Wales had in mind when he created Wikipedia. But be it as it may, I'll keep on recommending the sources I deem of high value to my family, friends and fellow students. At least they don't accuse me of promotion or of providing a "neologism that has not gained much traction" when they suddenly understand a term that is new to them.

Enjoy editing & fare well,

Rachel Tan
 * Rachel:
 * The only articles of yours that I marked for "Speedy deletion" were ones that were made up almost completely of copyright violations. Those are supposed to be speedily deleted, to protect the rights of the copyright holder as well as to help protect those who make use of Wikipedia's materials from unintentionally violating the rights of others. After you changed Wealth Net, and some other editor had gone through and cleaned your copyright violations out of the history of that page, I did my research to see if this was actually a term that carried weight, and found that there wasn't much there. Wikipedia is not intended to be a storehouse for everything. I did put that one up for deletion, but not "speedy", and indeed it was a deletion process that you could have ended with a single edit.
 * That you continue to deny that your additions were copyright violations suggests that you have not been paying attention to what has been said to you, and that you show little interest in co-operating with others in this project. Wikipedia has a large set of rules, of guidelines, and of suggestions that have been formed and worked with by people who have donated a large amount of time for this project. You certainly cannot be expected to know all of them or even much of them coming in, but you will find that if you listen to experienced editors when they give you advice or point you to guidelines, you are apt to end up doing more useful work here then when you insist that however it is you picture Wikipedia working must be the way that it works. Are you going to make mistakes? Yes, every new editor does - and every experienced editor you deal with was a new editor once.
 * My recommendation (not that I expect that is of much value to you) is that you take a break from Wikipedia, but do come back, bring your energy but perhaps fewer assumptions. Try finding an article that is of interest, and see if you can improve it in small ways at first - is there dated data there? Are there things that are poorly phrased? Work with what we have at first and build outward; your previous editing history has come across to more than one person as though you started with a specific source and tried to find various places to stick it in. Starting with new articles can be tempting but can be problematic; many (perhaps most) new articles get deleted for any of a number of reasons, and I understand that that can be frustrating. Smaller edits can be helpful in your learning the way things work around here, and that can make your larger efforts more effective.
 * And if that sounds like too much effort, I understand. There is a fine life to be had without contributing to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy your life whichever path you take. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Mind if I join this discussion -- just wanted to echo Nat's comments, and add that almost all of us contributors at Wikipedia have gone through a similar junction in which we try to contribute, but we find it's more difficult than it looks. There's a learning curve here in Wikipedia, learning the rules and habits, and this takes time to acquire, but after you get the gist, you'll find that you can contribute effectively with minimal fuss. It involves listening to other contributors, which is a skill that comes with time.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * RachelTan left a similar message on multiple talk pages of editors whom she feels persecuted her, and has apparently left Wikipedia. In my view, obstinate resistance to learning Wikipedia policies and guidelines when they are pointed out, will usually have this result. And that's fine, if the primary purpose of an editor is (quoting her above) to "keep on recommending the sources I deem of high value" by repeatedly adding links to someones personal web site. If the source is reliable, there are better ways to approach adding it, but RachelTan seemed to pay attention only to the fact that she was getting reverted, and not trying to learn from it. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand assuming that the flaws in her activities were central to her desire to edit, but it costs me nothing to allow for the possibility that her intents are good and the energy that went into her misfocused efforts might be there to be redirected to more useful ones. And I think that your focus on the self-published nature of the web page she pointed to may be overdone, as what she really wanted to point to was the PDF, which at least appears to be simply an electronic edition of something claimed to be published by School of Management Fribourg. If that's the publisher, the work could be cited reasonably as a reference even without a link, and either of the locations where the PDF has been found could be listed as a location for reading the text (it's not pointing to a copyright violation, as the hosting both at the .biz site and at researchgate would seem to fall within the book's copyright permissions.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Deprod: Wealth Tech
Hello, I deprodded Wealth Tech on the grounds that a comment left on the talk page after the article was tagged for deletion indicates that deletion is not uncontroversial. I did this before I saw your discussion above with the article creator. If you wish to pursue deletion please feel free to take to AFD. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 00:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

The World Tomorrow (radio and television)
Hi,

Glad to meet you.

I noticed your reversion of my edit on this page. I'm on the Wikipedia Typo Team and one of my current projects is to eliminate duplications of the word 'the'. Some are simple duplications, others are because they are on both sides of a wikilink and one goes unnoticed when reading. Once in a while, they're legitimate, but I don't believe this is one of those instances.

It's a myth that when the definite article 'the' precedes a noun or name that starts with 'the', it should be repeated. Only one 'the' is proper use. For instance, it's not proper to say (or write) that I'm going to play the The Legend of Zelda video game.

Spoken English generally allows much more leeway than written English, but even to say that there were varied translations of the The World Tomorrow name is extremely awkward - even grating. (Try saying it out loud.) If you think it's proper to use 'the' twice, may I suggest recasting the sentence so that they're not consecutive?

I'm aware that you're a writer and appreciate your experience, but I believe that if this was submitted to an editor, it would be changed. Please let me know if you want me to recast the sentence, or you want to.

Regards,

Ira

Ira Leviton (talk) 03:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ira,
 * I appreciate all the time and effort you're putting into cleaning up Wikipedia. If you feel that that's awkward, feel free to rephrase, just not in the way that you did.
 * When you tell me that it's a myth that the two sequential thes are correct, I respond with an admittedly problematic "sez who?" This is a topic that most style guides do not address. And no, I don't find it extremely awkward when spoken, but then I would instinctively pronounce the two differently ("thee thuh world tomorrow"). I don't find the removal at all logical; the two uses of the word serve different purposes and neither is removable. If I say "I purchased an An Affair to Remember poster and put it up next to the The Babe poster that was already there," I have done nothing wrong; to drop one of the thes changes it from my putting up a poster for a film about Babe Ruth to putting up a poster for a film about a talking pig. (Admittedly, some of the stories about Mr. Ruth suggest that there wasn't that much difference.)
 * Have a fine weekend! --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

FYI
ANI on Linda Perry‎ and Sara Gilbert Jim1138 (talk) 01:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Beyond Ex-Gay for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Beyond Ex-Gay 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/Beyond Ex-Gay 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. Mathglot (talk) 01:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Nat, we had an edit conflict; by the time your prod was up there, I had already created Articles for deletion/Beyond Ex-Gay, and so rather than cancel that (is that even possible?) or just let it hang twisting slowly in the wind, I just went ahead and replaced the prod notice with the Afd notice. Hope that's okay. Mathglot (talk) 01:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This probably would've been a good thing to do with Prod - less fuss, and there's no sign that anyone is actually interested in keeping the article there. But the AfD is fine. (You may want to try using Twinkle, which can set up AFDs quickly and automatically for you.) ---Nat Gertler (talk) 01:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it really is a hassle doing it manually. I'll have to try it, thanks. I did think of trying Prod, but the reason I didn't, is every time I have tried that, the creator or major contributor always deletes it, so I didn't see the point. Mathglot (talk) 06:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Jahnavi Kapoor
Hey there, why was you added deletion tag on Jahnavi Kapoor. The page have many reliable sources of Indian Newspapers websites like India.com, India Today, Indian Express. If you think that add more sources, I can add in It. Please consider to remove the deletion tag. Thanks HINDWIKI •  CHAT  11:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I prodded it because our guidelines say that actors should have multiple notable rolls to get their own article, and this subject's debut film has not yet come out. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Aurora Lighting
Hi, what I need to remove the notability note? I created pages before and I didn't receive this message. Also, last night another user removed many links. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Can.kilic1981 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

COI Noticeboard Process
Regarding [], I'm not sure what additional I can provide beyond, what I believe, is a clear WP:COI in regards to Mr.hmm with PfSense and OPNSense since the account was created 7 months after the initial release of OPNSense. Every edit and comment has been for one and opposed to the other, while constantly attacking other editors. If you have the responsibility of passing judgement, did you read his contributions and if there is something that I failed to do to demonstrate his actions, I would like to know how to improve it. I thought that I was posting in the correct place to have him considered for COI, yet you dismissed my claim simply based on his comments of the content being notable, yet again. I have added 12 citations to the Draft:OPNSense page to satisfy the notability, can we please address the issue at hand, that Mr.hmm has a Conflict of Interest and is not-neutral in his actions. His actions seem to fall into various behavioral categories, including WP:Disruptive Editing, WP:Gaming_the_system, WP:POINT, and likely others. I'm simply asking how I can get a more thorough review of this user's behavior, or if such a mechanism exists. ComputerRick (talk) 11:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not dismiss your claim, I addressed a single aspect of it which was based in problematic logic. I do not have some special COI-board powers. As to how to improve it, you muddied the waters of your concern over the one editor by listing other editors on your complaint; it made it look like you were declaring this a COI cabal, which falls apart on quicker examination. In any case, you should be bringing your consideration and arguments to the conflict of interest noticeboard where you started the discussion, and not to the personal talk page of just another editor, where it will achieve little if anything. The editor you are accusing does seem to be at least a single-purpose account which can indeed be an indication (but not proof) of a conflict of interest. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * With the upmost respect to you, I don't think it's appropriate to view my account as a single-purpose account just because one of many sock accounts try to get me removed. The user ComputerRick appears and attacks me (not to mention calls me a fascist several times) right after OPNsense draft is rejected by other editors. All of these socks appear almost one after another, it's beyond obvious that they're SPA's. And all of them keep pushing the same propaganda draft for non-notable software. I literally battle their sock accounts all the time, just check my talk page and talk page history.--Mr.hmm (talk) 02:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, but I don't view your account as a likely SPA because someone is trying to get you removed. I've seen many people targeted for removal (myself included) and many were not SPAs (myself included.) I view your account as a likely SPA because of the narrow band of articles you've edited some consistent purpose showing in what of those edits I've checked. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Because I stop vandalism and self-promotion? That's a pretty weak argument for SPA. I would with agree you if I was actually inserting content and not removing blatant promotion against the rules, instead my edits are related to FreeBSD and preventing vandalism (as described on my user page). Are you saying I should consider areas other than FreeBSD?--Mr.hmm (talk) 11:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, because I'm not saying that you shouldn't be an SPA. Simply being an SPA is not inherently a problem. Some SPAs do a lot of good, and some are celebrated for their efforts. (Others, not so much.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree about SPA matter but I respect your opinion as you're much more experienced editor. It's nice to have a pleasant chat for a change. Cheers!--Mr.hmm (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * NatGertler, You are correct. This is my first foray into contesting or complaining of any type of behavior and I was wrong to include the other two.  The reason I've come at this so focused is because of the consistent attacks that Mr.hmm makes against anyone trying to include something he doesn't agree with.  He's attacked nearly 20 users as socks because he's thinks we have an agenda.  I make a mistake and post 2 editors and I get lambasted, while Mr.hmm is not addressed at all?  He attacks and I make a mistake of etiquette, the responses for him & I do not seem to fit the crimes.  Thank you for being reasonable and honest.    ComputerRick (talk) 06:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Is that number of “nearly 20” actual or is it another wrong judgment made by you? I would love to see those "20" users listed somewhere. Especially when other Wikipedia editors have warned and even reported them. You’re the one who came in fiercely making accusations, not me (including calling me a fascist). Perhaps you should stop using NatGertler'talk page for personal attacks.--Mr.hmm (talk) 11:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's another editor proving you wrong too. Seems like you're the one with agenda here ComputerRick.--Mr.hmm (talk) 12:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The Happiness Hack
Mr. Gertler:

I am writing in regards to the proposed deletion (and eventual deletion of) The Happiness Hack Wikipedia page, The Happiness Hack is a book by Ellen Petry Leanse. I had initially seen the proposed deletion and meant to remove the tag and address the concern with the page but got sidetracked by the holiday. Though I've had a Wikipedia account for some time I am fairly new to consistent active editing on Wikipedia. I'd like the opportunity to fix the concern and restore The Happiness Hack page. The concern you stated was: Unsourced article with no claim of notabilityItalic text. I have the material to include that would be satisfactory in resolving the concern. How should I best proceed? With you being a seasoned and notable Wikipedia editor, your assistance and guidance would be most welcomed and priceless. Most appreciated in advance!

--DAyatollah (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)DAyatollahDAyatollah (talk)
 * For instructions on getting a page deleted by proposed deletion undeleted, see WP:REFUND. Having said that, be aware that there is likely to be concerned raised about any page about a book posted within a month of that book's release, as such articles tend to be promotional in intent or nature, as a month is generally not enough time for a book's true place in the world to have been established.
 * As a side note, when adding a new section to a talk page, it's best to add it to the bottom of the page rather than at the top. Talk pages are generally expected to be in historic order. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Nat:

Most appreciate the swift reply as well as the insight and side note on the WP: REFUND process and talk page purpose and best practices! The Happiness Hack was a book I had recently read and after deeper research on its subject matter and the author felt both should be included on Wikipedia. Additionally, I want to become more active on Wikipedia and felt these inclusions were ideal to start with. Will proceed accordingly and follow you closely to learn as I strive to become a better Wikipedia contributor and editor. A pleasure to meet and connect!

--DAyatollah (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)DAyatollahDAyatollah (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that you found a book that is of value to you. If you have any other questions about Wikipedia practices, let me know. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Most appreciated! And yes sir, I absolutely will! Bless you, for your time. Hope you had a happy holiday and have a great new year! --DAyatollah (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)DAyatollahDAyatollah (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Ellen Petry Leanse
Got your message. I'm pulling info as I locate all I can find on the author and then including the sources. I saw the Wikipedia notification on a promotional concern. Didn't do purposely, and trying to figure out how to correct. Not sure which language on how I wrote it triggered it. Any guidance?

--DAyatollah (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)DAyatollahDAyatollah (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm the person who raised the promotional language flag on the article. Let's look at the first paragraph as you just wrote it:

"Ellen Petry Leanse (born Ellen Petry August 12, 1958) is an American author, business leader, coach, educator, entrepreneur, and tech pioneer. Leanse has spent 35 years working with leaders at Apple, Google, Facebook, as an entrepreneur, and with dozens of startups. She’s a widely-followed writer on topics of workplace dynamics and a Stanford instructor. Her work has spanned entrepreneurship, corporate leadership, investing, and strategy consulting. Combining decades of life lessons with insights from neuroscience, design, and mindfulness practice, Ellen guides companies and individuals to “think different” about life satisfaction, relationships, impact, and the paths that build them."


 * "Leader", "pioneer", "widely-followed", and the claims about her methodology are all promotional in tone. This looks like an ad, not a neutral encyclopedia article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I see, it's the inferencing tone, I'll revise accordingly. Is there a way this type of language could be substantiated with sources? Or is it simply a point of view and speculative?

DAyatollah (talk) 21:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)DAyatollahDAyatollah (talk) 21:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I revised the followoing, removing the words "leader", "widely-follwed", and changing "tech pioneer" to "online community pioneer", whhich I think the source info cleary presents, let me know if you still think I should just revise that further:


 * Ellen Petry Leanse (born Ellen Petry August 12, 1958) is an American author, business person, coach, educator, entrepreneur, and online community pioneer. Leanse has spent 35 years working with leaders at Apple, Google, Facebook, as an entrepreneur, and with dozens of startups. She’s a writer on topics of workplace dynamics and a Stanford instructor. Her work has spanned entrepreneurship, corporate leadership, investing, and strategy consulting. Combining decades of life lessons with insights from neuroscience, design, and mindfulness practice, Ellen guides companies and individuals to “think different” about life satisfaction, relationships, impact, and the paths that build them.

--DAyatollah (talk) 22:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)DAyatollahDAyatollah (talk) 22:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Donald Watkins
Thanks for taking on the clean up. I think the article creator is stepping back from this, and it's probably best if I do too Jimfbleak - talk to me?  07:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to have the time to do a full clean-up anytime soon, particularly because the key source being used is not online. I'm just pecking away at the edges. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

You recently placed a prod
You recently placed a prod on Tnuza Jamal Hassan with the explanation: "Doesn't seem to qualify for an article at this point, under WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME - an otherwise not notable individual not yet convicted of a crime."

Okay, but doesn't BLP1E list 3 criteria, all 3 of which should be met, before an individual is a genuine instance of a BLP1E that merits a merge or deletion?

The second of those criteria is: "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article."

There is a good reason why wikipedia contributors don't try to create a standalone article on every murderer. Tragically, most murders are very similar, with drug deals gone bad, or family fights that escalated in households where loaded firearms were available, being two of the most common patterns. We adequately cover these very similar murders, and very similar murderers, in our articles on murder, on domestic violence, on firearms.

Unlike murder, domestic terrorism, within the USA is very rare. If Hassan was merely a vandal, trying to trigger a fire alarm so her exam would be cancelled, her crimes probably wouldn't even make the campus newspaper.

But, even though no one was actually injured, she seems to have confessed to murderous intent. She wanted to set the campus ablaze. Her charge sheet says she told investigators the USA was lucky she didn't know how to build a bomb, or she would have set off bombs, on campus.

Hassan appears to have confessed to crimes that qualify calling her a failed terrorist, not a simple garden variety vandal.

So, with regard to point number 2, I think the chance that she "is likely to remain, a low-profile individual" is about zero.

You included the phrase "at this point" in your justification for deletion. Okay, at what point would you agree she merits a standalone article?

I work on topics related to terrorism and counter-terrorism. I have not come across any cases like hers. Do you know the phrase "textbook case" -- often used figuratively. But, in her case, it will be literally true, when a year or two from now, she is profiled in a textbook covering the topic of domestic terrorism.

Will that be the point you need to see, before you would agree she merits a standalone article? Geo Swan (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Even if she is convicted (which would get past the WP:BLPCRIME concerns on discussing her at all), what you've got is a teenager who was unnotable before the event and will likely only be notable in discussing the event (even if the event does land in textbooks), in which case we would expect to have an article about the event, mentioning relevant information about her within that context (and possibly using her name as a redirect to that article.) If her life proves to be of greater focus than the event, that might be an argument for an article on her. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)
 * What we agree on is that Hassan was NN prior to getting caught.
 * You write she will "...likely only be notable in discussing the event..." Please think about this.  What is the event?  Her lighting a bunch of fires?  Vandals commit petty acts of vandalism, all the time.  If her "event" is merely setting fires, she is indistinguishable from all those petty vandals who don't end up in the news.  If it were really just the "event" that merits coverage, why wouldn't it be adequately covered in an article on Arson on college campuses causing less than $10,000 damage?  Why, because it is not the event that merits coverage.
 * What distinguishes Hassan is her apparent confession of murderous intent, her apparent confession to strike terror in the hearts of her neighbors in the American heartland.
 * What takes a kid, growing up in the American heartland, and triggers them to want to terrorize their neighbors? Is her confession, and the opinion of experts on terrorism, from the field of security, and the field of mental health, best covered in an article on the event of an attempt to start a bunch of fires on a University campus?  Rhetorical question.  Of course it isn't.
 * Journalist Robert Fisk, who provided excellent coverage over a long career, had American right-wing commentators turn his name into a verb, "Robert_Fisk", due to one instance where they claimed he was too credulous. Your comment may be suggesting that only if her name was similarly turned into a verb, "Hassaned", would you agree to having a standalone article.  Is this really what you meant?  Geo Swan (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow. Amazing. I said nothing about anyone's name turning into a verb, yet suddenly there is that straw man, erected for you to knock down. You act like it's something that unusual for an American to want to strike terror into the hearts of their neighbors... and yet, we don't have articles on every gay-basher, lyncher, and cross-burner in this country's history cluttering up these pages. But anyway, predictions of the future aside, what we've got there is an article that utterly disappears if we follow the suggestions of WP:BLPCRIME. Whether there should be an article in the future can be decided based on future developments. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am going to ask you to reflect on the wisdom of WP:VER. You and I are just wikipedia contributors.  What we cover here is supposed to be based on the judgement of reliable authoritative sources, as reflected in their published work.  If you and I were newspaper editors, and one of our writers wanted to write about young Ms Hassan, we would have the authority to yank our writer's article, or make them do a rewrite, based on arguments like that you used above, that (paraphrasing) she was really only a crazy mixed up kid, and her apparent resemblance to a terrorist could safely be ignored.


 * I know I am not a journalist, or a newspaper editor. I know I should not let my own personal opinion of Ms Hassan's case influence my work on her coverage.


 * But, excuse me, when you write about how Hassan is (paraphrasing) just a mixed up kid, whose act of vandalism didn't cause serious damage, so doesn't merit significant coverage here -- aren't you putting your personal judgement in front of the professional judgement of the professional editors who already decided these issues DO merit coverage? Geo Swan (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay, you don't even give me enough time to complete my response to your previous inventing of a stance for me that you're here doing it again. I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish here through your badgering, but I'm asking you to stop, and suggesting that you go read WP:NOTNEWS if you have not read it before. If you can show me a respectable encyclopedia that has an article on her, that would be different, but the goal of a newspaper and the goal of an encyclopedia are different. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * For all you and I know, if you kept your cool, and confined yourself to discussion, you may have convinced me... or I may have convinced you.


 * We are all responsible for what we do and write here. I do not think attempts at civil discussion should be described a "badgering".


 * I am sorry, but I think removing the prod you yourself placed, and escalating your concern to AFD, is not compliant with the spirit of WP:PROD. Geo Swan (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I too am sorry that you are unaware of the "spirit of WP:PROD." PROD is for uncontroversial deletions; the very fact that you posted here to argue against the prod is the proof that prod is not the right system for handling this deletion. I really have no interest in having an extended talk page discussion with you where you make up a stance for me just so I can say "hey, I didn't say that", and would rather just cut to the chase of discussing it where other people will see it and weigh in. You may feel free to take your further comments about the possible deletion of the article there. If you feel the need to go on some further discussion of how I was not "cool" enough to subject myself to your treatment, of course you shouldn't post that there... but then, you probably shouldn't post that anywhere. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Could you please be more careful...
With regard to these 8 edits, I am going to offer you the same advice I offer any nominator who then makes a bunch of edits to an article they nominated for deletion, before the AFD closes...

I know you know that for the wikipedia to be the success all its genuine proponents want it to be all contributors should do their best to be civil and collegial with one another. We ask contributors to Assume good faith. I suggest a corollary of AGF is that if we can avoid behaviour that strains the ability of our fellow contributors to assume good faith, we should avoid that behaviour. I, for one, want to reserve my ability to assume good faith for unavoidable misunderstandings, like the misunderstandings of people from different culutres, orwhen one person learned English as a second language.

Editing an article you have nominated for deletion? Policy does allow this. But people do expect nominators to have a very good reason for doing so. Removing obvious libel? No one questions the nominator, or anyone else, making those kinds of edits.

But when you nominate an article for deletion haven't you gone on record that you don't think the article measures up to our inclusion standards -- and it can't be improved to the point where it meets our inclusion standards.

Nominators editing articles they nominated for deletion, before the AFD is over -- it is pretty rare. In some of the other instances where I have seen it happen, the nominator was pretty transparently trying to sabotage the good faith efforts of those in the keep camp to address the concerns raised during the AFD that they recognized as genuine. Some of thse guys even assert, "but the article merited deletion, when I nominated it."

The edit summaries you used, and the edits you made, seem to be intended to improve the article. Nevertheless, I think they were ill-advised.

My general advice to nominators, about editing articles they nominated for deletion:
 * 1) If the AFD closes as keep or no consensus, feel free to make good faith improvements;
 * 2) If you change your mind, and decide the article merits keeping, during the AFD, then clearly signal your change of heart, at the AFD, before you make any improvements;
 * 3) If you now think the article should have a name-change, and possibly a change of focus -- a position several people have taken -- that is not a delete.  You should own up to changing your mind, at the AFD, prior to making any changes.
 * 4) So long as you remain firmly in the delete camp, give those in the keep cam a free hand, and refrain from making improvements.

There are AFDs where only a few people, or only a single person, has voiced a keep opinion. I've seen those people work hard to improve the article, during the AFD period, only to have their efforts impeded by those in the delete camp making improvements. Even if deletion seems inevitable to most people, it doesn't seem inevitable to those working hard to make improvements.

So, even if policy allows you to keep improving an article, even if you are firmly on the record that it can't be improved, I think there are strong reasons for nominators to keep their hands off. I recognize that almost everyone I disagree with is nevertheless operating from a position of good faith.

I suggest to you that, if and when an AFD discusision closes as delete, it is best for the project if those who voiced a keep have no grounds to wonder "if only those who voiced a delete had left me with a free hand to make my improvements, I would have been able to improve it to the point it ended up being kept." I suggest it shouldn't even matter if deletion seems inevitable to practically everyone, there is no lasting value to the project for those in the delete camp to "improve" articles they are on record should be deleted.

As I said above, we all have an obligation to try to assume good faith, but a corollary to AGF is to not unnecessarily strain our fellow collaborator's ability to AGF. Geo Swan (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow.
 * If you feel hurt by the fact that I corrected false information that you were attempting to spread about a living person, to stem the damage that you have already done with your edits, that resides with you, not me. Not spreading such damaging claims, even during the AFD period, is more important than protecting your feelings. Additionally, the AFD should be based on actual facts about the matter, rather than falsehoods that are in the article at the point that the AFD starts.
 * Given that you use access to my talk page to lecture me about Wikipedia, and given that you seem to have a very poor understanding of its standards and practices, I hereby tell you to stay the hell off of this page. Frankly, I thought that you'd already gotten that understanding when you said "Since their last comment was basically a Foxtrot Oscar, I am putting my last reply here", but apparently it needs to be made more explicit. If you have arguments with the individual edits to the article, bringing it up on the article's talk page. If you just want to harangue me based on your misunderstandings, feel free to find a better hobby.
 * If you want to find someone who should be "more careful", review the edits that you are complaining about and realize that they arise from you having not been "careful", at best. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Your revert at Bob Menendez
You reverted my edit to Bob Menendez without any explanation. My rationale is that he has won 2 elections on his own since then and so his appointer no longer matters (that information is contained in the body of the article). Effectively, the people have "appointed" him now that he has won at least one election (see Jeffrey Chiesa and Mo Cowan for contrasts). I'm asking you to revert your edit. – JocularJellyfish TalkContribs 02:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * While the people have maintained him as an incumbent, he nonetheless achieved the post through appointment. That information is of value, was first put in the infobox by January of 2007, and when others have tried to delete it, it's been reinstalled. There is no discussion on the talk page about removing it. So I will not undo the edit; I encourage you to start a discussion on the talk page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Page sourcing and improvement at Bryan Earl Kreutz
Thanks for your patience in letting me do some reference cleanup, but most importantly the pointing out of the most notable role of the actor on the film release date for Bryan Earl Kreutz. I also had a nice thorough bit of assistance from : to filling in the small gaps of needed reference clean up. If you think I should step back as the creator of the article and give another perspective i'm happy to do so, but again i'm grateful for your guidance. --Techform (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

templates removal
Hi, NatGertler! Thank you for your attention to a new article about Corys TESS company! :) I've fixed the issues. If you're satisfied with the current article's look please help me to remove all the templates above. If you would like to disscuss something I am open for it! :) Thanks behorehand! Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

"if it ain't broke..."
"...don't fix it." See WP:NOTBROKEN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you see WP:NOTBROKEN, because it's not talking about the case that you see on Jingle Bells. That's about removing a redirect by piping. What you've been doing is repeatedly inserting a pipe to a redirect, so that it goes back to an article with the name of the display text. That's inefficient on various fronts including making the page source look more complex than needed. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I think you need to read it again. It's basically saying that there are advantages to such pipes, so don't fix them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it's basically saying that there are advantages to using redirects rather than piping. You,, are trying to edit-war in a version that uses both a pipe and a redirect rather than a direct link. I'm not sure whether you misunderstood WP:NOTBROKEN or Jingle Bells, but the thing that you're trying to edit war in serves no purpose. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

SMILE!! 3 March 2018
 Hello NatGertler, Me-123567-Me has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC) Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

David Ogden Stiers
Info has three references. No need to undo revisions. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * All of which is covered on the talk page, where standing consensus is that it's problematic to include. Please reach new consensus before re-adding. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Christmas Controversies
Nat, Really. Just go look again. Do you really think I was trying to get others to harass an editor on his talk page? No way. Do you approve of his greeting when someone tries to leave a message on his talk page? That's what I was trying to assess from the editing community. But ignore me here if you don't want to answer. I was only looking to hear from those willing to do so. Evensteven (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I really think you were trying to round up people on an article page to go to a user's talk page to generate complaints. Otherwise, you're just an experienced editor who is mysteriously unaware that an article talk page is a place to discuss the editing of an article, rather than the actions of a user at some other page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok. Sorry to hear that. No lack of awareness there. But how people edit is of concern to every editing community. Where would you have taken it? ANI immediately? That seemed a bit of an extreme reaction to me.

My impression after two years is that the editing environment has become corrosive enough that the worst is generally assumed, rather than good faith. In any case, I'm not happy to have introduced an uproar, whatever the cause. And I am happy to go away. Sorry if I offended you. Evensteven (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, you shouldn't have gone to ANI immediately; you should've raised the issue on his talk page... which you did do. And then, if that failed and you thought it was of sufficient import, you should have taken it to ANI; clearly, what you did ended up with the matter at ANI anyway, only in a way that was much less favorable to your position. You also should not have undone MPants's edits to his talk page; with a few exceptions, folks are allowed to control the content of their talk pages. To repost that was an example of harassment. To post at all on his page after he had banned you from it was also a violation. And if you had rounded up some people who agreed with you, what would that have accomplished? He was clearly not open to hearing what you had to say (nor you to what he had to say, as you reposted your claim about 1RR when he had accurately pointed out to you that you were misinterpreting 3RR.) ANI has people who can actually do things about things, if need be. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

next steps and advice


Hi there, I've been missing talking to you. Looking for some advice on how to proceed. For the article in my userspace linked here>> userspace I wanted to ask if you can look it over please, since you're the best editor and communicator that I know! The last administrator I last talked to approx. a week ago was helpful and we communicated several times on steps to make this a solid article. The administrator had me follow the format of sections and specifically read the Characters section and shorten it after a lot of clean up..... after reading this the relevant MOS section for that. I've done that and re-ordered the sections to work with the Manual of Style/Television. Additionally I've compared it to that of another TV show for length on the characters section and it has been shortened to be in a good size for content. Character comparison was made to the size and length to that of the TV series Cheers. Also do I need to have this or another administrator move it back to mainspace for me or go through the submitting it via the Articles For Creation process for re-inclusion?

I remember you said Drafts will not, however, sit there forever; "stale" drafts get deleted and wanted to get your take on the article and next steps to proceed? --Techform (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've responded on the talk page of your draft article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Organisations vs organizations
Thanks. I don't know why I used "s", as "z" is ok both in British English and American. It's the -yse -yze verbs that always yse in British English I think. I've lived in the UK so long that I sometimes can't remember which is which. Doug Weller talk 16:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I probably wouldn't've even noticed if the other spelling had not been in the same paragraph. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Joe Lane (cartoonist)
I'm not finding much in the way of significant coverage in reliable sources for Mr. Lane/Eichberger. Although he might have a few credit lines in comic/cartoon databases, and some blog remembrances, he may not meet WP:GNG notability guidelines. Do you know of where any more significant coverage might be found? --Animalparty! (talk) 00:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern and research is continuing. The Eichberger/Lane connection has only just come to light, there are some other pseudonyms currently being researched that would help build material. Your tag is understandable at this point, and I will not attempt to remove it unless there is a substantial addition. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)