User talk:NatGertler/Archive 6

THE WORLD TOMORROW
Mr. Holt has been the host since the Dr. died, and a handful of others fill in occasionally as hosts. Regular weekly new shows air each week on the US national satellite religious stations of TheWalkTV. Major US market stations airing new programmes every week in Atlanta, Chicago, Phoenix, Miami, Orlando, Denver, Charlotte, Indianapolis, US Virgin Islands, Sacramento, Nashville, Knoxville, and Sydney Australia to name a few. The Line upon Line live YouTube and simulcast podcast airs as a live webcast bible study every Friday night. It is hosted by Dr. Ricks. And a new Holt hosted Valentine Day episode aired recently too.

Hope this satisfied your evil twin acquaintances inquiring minds. Please advise your twin acquaintances they are operating a dead online work and all their HWA promos and efforts fall on deaf ears. Just in case they wonder why they get no replies, no comments, no responses, no likes. WCG, is defunct. The warning message went out loud and clear to co-workers in all groups worldwide, to stay out of the kitchen, so to speak.

David A. and Matthew A.

LIVE ACTIVE WEBSITE ADDRESSES (Not dead, as your phishing statement claimed) https://www.garnertedarmstrong.org http://www.herbert-w-armstrong.com http://cogwwm.homestead.com http://www.intercontinentalcog.org/index.php http://www.herbert-armstrong.org http://icg.org.au — Preceding unsigned comment added by TGTAEA (talk • contribs) 06:59, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The relevant portions of this message have been transferred over to Talk:The World Tomorrow (radio and television), as that is the more appropriate place to respond. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Not at all interested in playing games with you Nat, so DO NOT MESSAGE US OR CONTACT US AGAIN. Your actions editing this article are obvious sock puppetry. Your destructive edit came immediately after you were contacted by wwcg-archives. wwcg-archives has sought to delete this article, in March 2017 he nominated it for speedy deletion. wwcg-archives engaged in another failed attempt to splice the article into two different articles, another failed attempt. wwcg-archives. By your own admission Nat Gertler, contacted you by PM and you immediately declared the current series dead, as wwcg-archives requested you to do. That is you being a sock for wwcg-archives in his continuing attempts to destructive edit the article, by any definition you are guilty of being his sock by making the edits he asks you to make. Any further destructive edits by you, to this article will result in the action you suggested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TGTAEA (talk • contribs) 22:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It may surprise you to learn, but making up stuff about someone and then accusing them of that is not apt to be an effective bullying technique, particularly when things are in the public record.
 * No one nominated the article for "speedy deletion" in March, 2017. Someone did nominate it for the Articles for Deletion process, which is a different deletion system... and that someone was not the user whom you accuse.
 * Nowhere did I declare that said user contacted me by PM recently... and would not have done so, as he has not. I did respond to a public comment on his talk page.
 * Even had he suggested something and I agreed, that would not make me a "sock puppet" in Wikipedia terms. At most, that would've made me a "meat puppet". However, no such request was made, much less followed.
 * I'm not sure how anyone would "splice" one article into two. One might split one article into two, or splice two articles into one.
 * Again, you are free to take the case to WP:SPI as I noted, and indeed your doing so would be a better idea than your current system of repeatedly bearing false witness. (And again, threatening to do the very thing that I recommend you do? Not a particularly effective bullying tehcnique.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The small, male dominated, computer nerd community that comprises Wikipedia editors fought viciously for a number of years to keep a title card photo insert off the Wikipedia page for THE WORLD TOMORROW. Their combined tactics are demonstrated above by the way they ganged up on, and blocked every unrelated, independent editor - the members or supporters and viewers of the television show, and all their IP addresses and usernames, from inserting a title card, and the section pertains to Senator Bob Dole’s preservation request for this television series archives placed into the US Library of Congress. Basically, a handful of Wikipedia editors attempted to suppress the inclusion of a title card and the mention of the Bob Dole archives preservation, which resulted in the above edit war, and their unwarranted blocks on every user and IP that was pro inclusion. Barek and his “team” finally had to relinquish and honor Wikipedia rules and procedures and he and his “team” ultimately allowed the title card upload and Bob Dole preservation information. The above archived battle over this issue, speaks volumes for how this all boys club of super Wikipedia editors can and do suppress Free Speech, when it come to a controversial television show like this that teaches the opposite of their religious views and opinions, or any subject or Wikipedia article they disagree with they want to delete, suppress, or block out all other editors attempts at free speech to improve an article with a photo or fact. It is no wonder Wikipedia is failing financially and begging for money. Their long established all boys club has excluded women, and newcomers are harassed, thwarted, and immediately perma blocked, from the instant they attempt to join up and make their first edit. Nat Gertler made his destructive edit claiming the television show appeared dead, after he admitted he was contacted by editor wwcg-archives, who also sought to destructively split the article into two new, different and competing articles, some time ago. At the very least Nat Gertler acted as a meat puppet for editor wwcg-archives to cause damage to the article after his contact with wwcg-archives, without any facts, investigation or source. Nat Gertkers edit summary questioning the in current production status of the show was a phishing question he posed on behalf of wwcg-archives. WWCG-archives.com, harassed and cyber bullies this elderly married couple, producers of the program, at his website “about” homepage and posts both their names, Earl and Shirley Timmons, at his wwcg-archives.com website about section. At the very least wwcg-archives should be blocked under Wikipedia Rules for having a promotional username. Nat Gertler should be sanctioned for the meat puppetry. He has aided and abetted promotional username wwcg-archives (wwcg-archives.com) destructive edit attempt on this article in doing so, Nat Gertler has unwittingly been used by wwcg-archives in their ongoing online harassment campaign effort against the elderly couple, the producers of the show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 420high (talk • contribs) 16:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to discussion
Hi, NatGertler. Please consider joining this discussion on the same-sex marriage article talk page regarding additions to the lead and to support or oppose the proposal. This message is being left for you as you are active in this topic area. Thank you! --Justthefacts9 (talk) 07:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Rick Scott
Perhaps you should research Snooganssnoogans, who has been warned multiple times for edit wars. I have done nothing but tell the truth. OSHAGUY (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

kemi olunloyo
subject was released and rearrested, then released and rearrested, I will not contest your edit but you should be aware your explanation is a little strange — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.228.247.215 (talk) 03:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Meatpuppet looking for some matching socks. Pathetic assumption Gertler.
Fact: wwcg-archives (a promotional username) and Nat Gertler are  meatpuppets or working closely together to try to ram through their desired version of an article. And now, Nat, you waste others time here on Wikipedia with a sock puppet theory and wrong accusation. Truly pathetic. You have already admitted your mistake, and corrected it with the proper article update. Try to move forward now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TGTAEA (talk • contribs) 18:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, that technique about lying to the person you're lying about? Not very effective. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Again, that technique of lying about socks, one editor in Texas, the other editor in Australia, along with many other editors who had their IP address and accounts blocked over many years who tries to make simple factual edits to the article. As the article stands now it is factual.  So since you are extremely interested in this article, as your history proves with well over a dozen edits over several years, why not take it upon yourself to redact the disputed template.  That would be something constructive you could do, rather than all the other unnecessary edits.  The template was placed in 2017, and there does not appear to be any discussions as to the factual accuracy of the article going on anywhere.  In this case it seems like the only interested party, which began our communications with you over your edits in recent days, has been user wwcg-archives.  And clearly he is using a promotional username to correspond with his website where he is webmaster and creator.  Since this fact has been pointed out why haven’t you blocked him for using a promotional username in violation of Wikipedia rules.  As an experienced longtime editor you should take action on, or report any violations brought to your attention. TGTAEA (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)TGTAEA
 * Since you seem unable to post without making stuff up, unable to realize you are not my boss, and working under the confusion that once you claim something others must accept it as true, you are now banned from this talk page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And for those playing our home game, if anyone had "TGTAEA gets blocked" on your sheet, you get seven points and get to pick one Commander Obvious card! --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Removing content from a Wikipedia article about a television series being on air and in current production does not negate the fact, or cancel the program.174.255.130.96 (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Barrelafun

you guys should see the explanation he left on the kemi olunloyo page, I am questioning this mods intelligence to say the least. - SMc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.228.247.215 (talk) 03:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!
I hope you have a great holiday!

Peter Buschang Deletion
Dude you gotta give me 10 minutes to finish writing the article. I just hit submit and was going to add everything. You can't just go on a deleting spree without giving someone a chance. All the sourcing and links are done

About Home's sequel
This may be a true sequel

Undid revision
Hi NatGertler, I am very happy that you can review entries so quickly and take care of the high level of information posted on Wikipedia. Today you rejected my amendment to the page about coloring books. I'm not sure why you considered the given source as not reliable? The given facts were quite obvious but relevant for the information contained in the article. I think that proving that coloring books develop manual skills do not require too deep research. Therefore, I will be grateful if you reconsider this edition. Thank you for your time and I'm sorry if that's not the best place to make such suggestions but I couldn't find any other way to contact you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janmarian83 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have responded to this on the user's talk page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Undoing revisions on William Kumuyi
Hello NatGertler, Thanks for the efforts to ensure that posts are from reliable sources. However, I did not consider the references I used as self-published as the website is not connected in any way with William Kumuyi. Kindly re-evaluate the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kudumi Huck (talk • contribs) 16:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I must have explained things less than clearly. If the publisher is the same as the author of what is published, then it cannot be used as a source... UNLESS that publisher/author is the subject of the article, in which case it may be used for certain material. So the blog post you cited is a self-published source because Russ Mitchell is both the author and the publisher of that blog entry. There is no other editor with control over that blog. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Adding awards to Darius Adamczyk
Hey Nat, I wanted to thank you for your advice on WP:BLP. I was hoping you could take a look at the specific situation. I'm working on the article for Darius Adamczyk (where I have a COI), but the awards fall into a bit of a grey area in terms of what you described. Neither award has its own article, but the both of the awarding organizations do. I was discussing the matter with another editor, but he's been unresponsive as of late, and I was curious what your opinion would be in this specific instance. Thanks again for the help!--FacultiesIntact (talk) 01:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello again! First of all, I have to let you know that I really appreciated the Princess Bride reference. Secondly, I was curious if you agree that this Bloomberg profile demonstrates notability when it comes to the awards. I reached out to Edwardx, but haven't heard anything back. If you have the time, can you take a look? I'd really appreciate it.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 'Fraid not. Bloomberg profiles are, to my understanding, largely submitted by the people or companies they are profiling. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you then help me understand why it's suitable to use as a reference throughout the article? I'm confused as to how a publication can be suitable sometimes, but not others. Even supposing that's the case, is Bloomberg suddenly not applying a comparable level of journalistic integrity?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 01:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't time at the moment to go through the article and see how it's used, but in general: we accept self-generated sources for information that is not considered particularly boastful or giving an advantage (he went to Palmyra High School, his wife's name is Brenda, as opposed to he graduated magna cum lauda from Harvard, he's married to Marilyn Monroe), and will use it for things that we cover as rote (with a company, say, number of employees), but the fact that it's covered in such a source does not tell us that it's important enough to include. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

List of comic-based television episodes directed by women
I just wanted to invite you to create a wiki page for List of comic-based television episodes directed by women. More information at Talk:List of comic-based films directed by women. Cardei012597 (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Better
You're a better person than I. Their commentary came across as trolling. I was just curious to see where it went, since the weirdness reminded me of this person. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Eh, I could just see that you two were letting a small misunderstanding wobble off. We all do it at times. Trust me, I'll balance out that "betterness" by doing something horrible today, accuse a puppy of crimes against the state or somesuch. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Possibly my favourite edit summary this year
. Excellent! Guy (Help!) 09:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (There's... Johnny!) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating There's... Johnny!, NatGertler!

Wikipedia editor Doomsdayer520 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Thanks for your new article on 'There's... Johnny!' Some other editors have been doing a lot of work on it over the past few days."

To reply, leave a comment on Doomsdayer520's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 12:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

7th Annual Los Angeles Wiknic
It's the 7th Annual Los Angeles Wiknic! Sunday, September 30, 11:00-4:00 PM Pan Pacific Park, 7600 Beverly Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90036 Hang out. Consume crowd-sourced BBQ! Bask in the glory of late September in Los Angeles (and the glory of our new user group, Wikimedians of Los Angeles). RSVP (and volunteer) here. We hope to see you there! JSFarman (talk) 02:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC) Join our Facebook group, or follow us on Twitter! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

Disputes
Your recent actions and edits as well as article talk page replies seem to be out of spite and are not in the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. What exactly is your problem? --Justthefacts9 (talk) 05:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I am trying to improve the article, and someone is reinserting falsehoods as well as protecting digressions that he appears to have inserted to make up most of the opening paragraph. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Come on now, you should assume good faith. Everyone is here to improve Wikipedia and edit collaboratively. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 05:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "You should assume good faith" says the person who accuses me of editing out of spite. "Everyone is here to edit collaboratively" says the person who just said that I am not engaging in the collaborative spirit. Am I not part of everyone? --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It is difficult to assume that you are acting in good faith or editing in a collaborative spirit given your repeated personal attacks as seen here and here over something as irrelevant as a username, the latter of which was after you were warned about the policy. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You may want to reread this. That's not an attack, that advice. It may not be advice you want to hear, but it's advice nonetheless. --Nat Gertler (talk)
 * That's a blatant personal attack and a clear violation of WP:No personal attacks, which states: "Comment on content, not on the contributor". --Justthefacts9 (talk) 22:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit war
Exactly where is the supposed edit war you refer to in this message? --Justthefacts9 (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC) So now you have made a false accusation in addition to the personal attacks detailed above. You will be reported if you keep up this behavior. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No, you just made a false accusation. You have already violated WP:3RR. 4, 3, 2, 1. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Reverting blatantly false additions such as this is not an example of an edit war. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 22:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I suggest you actually read WP:3RR, including the exceptions section. Inaccuracy is not an exception. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Blatantly false additions made in bad faith are vandalism, which is defined by WP:Vandalism as edits which are "deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose". A blatantly false addition which is known by all to be false is made in bad faith (it is highly unlikely that the IP was unaware that the addition is blatantly false) and is an obvious case of vandalism. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I see zero sign that that was done in bad faith; that marriage is a matter of license rather than a right is not a unique view. And even without that reversion, you'd have done 3 reversions... which is when the 3RR warning is supposed to be posted. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Second instance
Once again, you've placed the same message in bath faith. Exactly where is the violation of 3RR? Furthermore, what is your actual justification for ripping out that notable quote from a statement that was released to the public? --Justthefacts9 (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You have hit 3RR in your edits, the only justification needed was the copyright violation (although giving more space to one quote from one US player than you give to the entire opposition section has some real balance problems), and I'm not actually a member of the bath faith, I'm more of a shower man myself. If you wish to complain to administrators about my actions, feel free. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:43, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * A 3RR violation occurs after more than 3 non-vandalism related reverts on the same article within 24 hours. If you truly felt that the quote was a copyright violation, then why not replace the quote with a statement in Wikipedia voice? Also, very amusing. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * A 3RR warning is generally given when an editor is at 3 reversions, so that they are warned not to go beyond it.... as you did the other day. That you have felt the need to come and repeatedly post false attacks against me because I did you the favor of warning you is not appreciated. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Repeated 3RR warnings are not necessary and not appreciated. Attacks? A clear-cut case of real attacks are the WP:Personal attacks detailed above. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I shall not do you that favor in the future. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Someone appears to be rather fond of that little slip . --Justthefacts9 (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Someone is not fond of others adjusting their comments after they have already been responded to in such a way that the response no longer makes sense. See WP:REDACT --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Isn't that rather petty? Over something like that. --Justthefacts9 (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope! --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

John C. Eastman
You've edit this article. There's a red link there for the Public Interest Legal Foundation, just wondering if you wanted to create an article for it after reading this. Doug Weller talk 12:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Not today (this specific day). Other life to tend to. (But, boy, PILF does not mean what I'd guessed it to have mean. Neither he nor Brian S. Brown would qualify as a PILF in my book!) --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:39, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've blue-linked it. It's a stub, but that gets the ball rolling. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Immediatly stop changing my posts at Talk:2018 Freiburg gang rape!
This is an absolute no go. STOP!--Greywin (talk) 15:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Our WP:BLP guidelines do apply to talk pages as well as to articles. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

DINOs
Why did you remove the list of current Dinos I added? Grimm324 (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2018 (UTC)


 * As the article notes, "DINO" is a pejorative term, and it's not a fixed value; different people would differ on to whom it applies. It is not something that should ever appear in Wikipedia's voice, under our Neutral Point of View guideline. And nothing negative about a living person should appear without a source. There may be context in which we might say that person X considered person Y a DINO, but there would have to be compelling reason for inclusion. Wikipedia is not here to document your opinion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay, then. What if I find some sources and evidence and get back to you? Grimm324 (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)


 * It is unlikely to qualify for inclusion in the article on DINOs unless it's in the context of a discussion of the term DINO... and even then, we would be cautious on even quoting that term as applying to a living person, under our guidelines on biographies of living persons (BLPs). It is basically inherent in the nature of being a politician that there are people with negative opinions of them. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)


 * By the way, do you know any articles that desperately need proofreading? I'm not so good with sources and info, but I'm an A student in grammar. Grimm324 (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I can't name any off the top of my head, but I suggest putting your favorite common error into the search box (say, "its a ") and see what articles pop up. Having said that, I will caution you that Wikipedia has its own style guide, so there are a couple places where your proofreading instinct may lead you astray. Just as an example, take a look at MOS:LQ, our guideline on "logical quotations". --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Environmental Working Group
Thanks for your good work.

Please see User talk:65.210.77.98. If they continue their problem editing I recommend using the template message, followed by 3, and then 4. You might want to add a few words of your own to encourage them to use the article talk page, as I have done. Toddy1 (talk) 13:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Massive violation of WP:TPNO
Don't ever alter my posts again. Thank you.--Greywin (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Violations of WP:BLP is a listed exception for the rules against editing others comments. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There are multiple, highly reputable WP:RS. That's definitely no BLP case at all!--Greywin (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Peanuts films
Oops, that was an accident, my fault for not being more careful with Cat-a-lot. Thanks for catching that. Trivialist (talk) 16:20, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

LI content edit
Hi there, I edited your content on the LI page, as in my view there was a sudden change to the page which highlighted an anti-capitalist agenda, some of which was unrelated to the report itself and that, given the number of reports LI create, if this was done for each and every report the page would scroll for miles. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.240.165 (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wasn't my content, I just undid another user's deletion done on false pretenses. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Find Me in Paris
Hi, I noticed that you were the original creator of Find Me in Paris, and I just wanted to make sure my recent large edit was all ok! I had the coding saved from September 2018 when I was new to Wiki so I saved it for when I was better.

Thanks! Joesimnett (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't pored over it in detail, but at first glance it was fine. (I was mainly trying to create enough of a stub that an article could be grown from that.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Having looked over what you did, I see that yes, you placed in all of your own edit, which means you ignored what others (in this case, me) had done before. It would've served the article best to check the article as it existed, and see if there is any information there that was not in your version. I have since reintegrated most of the original article into the new version. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I’m glad we’ve been able to make the page much better! – Joesimnett (talk) 09:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rocket Fizz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Soda ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Rocket_Fizz check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Rocket_Fizz?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to attend a Southern California Regional mini Unconference
Who: All Wikipedians & Wikimedians

What: Southern California Regional mini Unconference.

When: Sunday 3 March 2019, 2:00PM PST / 1400 until 4:10PM PST / 1610

Where: Philippe's at Chinatown, Los Angeles

Sponsor: San Diego Wikimedians User Group ( US-SAN )

Your host:

Please add your username to our attendees list so we know how many will be attending, due to the limited size of the cafe.

(Delivered: 00:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC) You can unsubscribe from future invitations to San Diego Wikimedians User Group events by removing your name from the WikiProject San Diego mass mailing list & the Los Angeles mass mailing list.)

Bobby Moynihan‎
See the infobox. If you're going to remove the unsourced birthdate from the lead, you may want to remove it from the infobox as well. I assume that's where the most recent editor found it and copied it to the lead.  General Ization Talk  02:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

User:NatGertler
Good morning NatGertler, I like your user page ~ I put you on my watch list ~ I'm not stalking you, I just want to learn from your corrections so I don't intentionally make the same mistakes over and over again. Thanks Mitchellhobbs (talk) 11:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Great, the goal here should be to always make new and innovative mistakes! --Nat Gertler (talk) 11:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Cliff Wirth


Hello, NatGertler. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Cliff Wirth".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia 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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Henry C. Beck


Hello, NatGertler. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Henry C. Beck".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia 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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

pictures
How do you post pictures in the body?
 * You use the File tag, such as UC Irvine, Langson Library.JPG tag such as is used in the section above this one. You can find more details on uploading images at Uploading images and information on inserting those images into the article at Picture tutorial. Let me know if you have any further questions. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you--just a history and political buff--your advice will help greatly--I got the first one to work. I have also acquired pictures of most of the other AGs and will update in time. I updated the site greatly that has all of them. I am just working to build out the profiles of all of them. Ravnsborg is just the easiest since he was just elected and in office, but Jackley has a lot of material and many of them are still alive. Thank you again

Tzemach Tzedek Responsa Not Applicable to Fellatio in Halacha
The Responsa of the Tzemach Tzedek referenced is not relevant to the discussion of halacha of felatio. His responsa is clearly regarding a woman who has a medical condition and should not get pregnant, whether she can use a contraceptive. If anything, the responsa implies the opposite of how it is portrayed in the article. The responsa implies that ONLY vaginal sex with a contraceptive is allowed.
 * Then you should've stated a simplified version of that in the edit summary when making that change. When sourced material is removed without an edit summary, it looks like someone is simply removing information they would rather not be seen. Communicating the reason for your edits helps your fellow editors understand what you're doing. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

My apologies, I am not a seasoned wiki editor. If there is a way to amend the Edit Summary, I would certainly do that.
 * There's no way to amend, but I have added your comments to the talk page so that people can see the reason. It's just something to keep in mind in the future. (We're all new here at some point.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Where is this located in the Tzemach Tzedeks works? Debresser (talk) 10:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

The Artist Within books
Please find I've added the the info (with references) to pages of artists who agreed to to be photographed and included in the project - not as promotional - but because it documents that artist within their creative environment - especially as many of those artists in the collection contained within those two tomes have now passed. The books remain a reference point of popular culture artists from the 20th century, and specifically for seeing that artist in their working environment.Martinishot77 (talk) 21:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Further, venues such as The Academy Awards, The Eisner Awards, and WP:RS publications such as The Atlantic Magazine, The Washington Post, and Newsday, have utilized portraits from within the books.

I believe-for these reasons-that the addition of the info on those artists pages is valid. Happy to discuss furtherMartinishot77 (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

look
See this page Flutter (comic series) and you will know
 * I saw that page and while it could use general improvement, I didn't see any specific obvious thing. That particular comic is not one that I know and could say "hey, this is what needs addressing." --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Grounded Videos
Regarding about your post

Yet, if that source is not acceptable to that Vyond page, then why that "grounded videos" is a huge phenomenon, that spread all over the internet? It sounds like you don't even care to add that detail. But please explain why you don't want everybody to be aware about "grounded videos" stuff.

Wiki-Ikiw (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not meant to be a site for new observations, but a summary of significant material found in reliable sources. Without that, anyone can just put anything on a Wikipedia page, and it becomes useless. If it is such a huge phenomenon, surely you can find a reliable source covering that, right? All the various attempts to add statements about "grounded videos" lack that sourcing. -Nat Gertler (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Bill O'Malley


Hello, NatGertler. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Bill O'Malley".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further 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. Liz Read! Talk! 00:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

A source
☺ Uncle G (talk) 09:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Jason Ravnsborg
Sorry I am new but you deleted my posts about AG Jason Ravnsborg of South Dakota. It was in the news that he was one of only 5 AGs in the country that agreed to the Sprint/T-Mobile merger. He was first one of 5, as there are many (like 13) suing yet, so to say he did what all the other AGs did I think is not accurate. He spoke at the news conference and so I disagree that he did what every other AG did, looks like the leading voice for the AGs to me. I also provided 2 sources that talked about the situation and quotes from him, one from the Chicago Tribune and one from Keloland.com. One in state and one out of state. I did not know how to write it on the comment page where you deleted it, so I came here, I hope that is ok.SDEditor101 (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The comment about what every other AG did was in relation to the Equifax Settlement, which was something that every AG supported and that was sourced solely to the press release from the SDAG office. But in general I am concerned with trying to list every action that he takes as AG as significant. As for the Sprint matter, The KELO coverage was specifically about him making the announcement, which made it local interest. The Chicago Tribune had a single sentence on him. If you wish to raise the issue on the talk page, go to Talk:Jason Ravnsborg -- you'll see one of the tabs at the top is marked "new section". Click that, and you'll get an editor set up for starting a new conversation on that page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2019 (UTC)I put a comment there, but I was in the process of editing here when you responded, but it sure looks like the posts you deleted are very similar to other AGs who signed on to cases, like Ken Paxton of Texas...have you looked at his page? He seems to have agreed to settlements similar to the Equifax example, but the other sprint one it seems like only 5 AGs involved and Ravnsborg was taking questions from reporters at the conference. Seems bold to me to be one of only 5 on such a large merger dealSDEditor101 (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks "Nat" (if I may be so familiar) for your providing assistance and advice to other editors. I've had very few requests for same in the 13 years I've been here, but am always happy to give feedback. Activist (talk) 06:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Glad to! If we don't bring new editors up to speed, then we're stuck handling the edits ourselves forever! --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Southern California Wiknic & Bonfire invitation
 Meetup-San Diego-September 2K19 Who: All members of the public

What: Southern California Wiknic & Bonfire.

When: Sunday 1 September 2019, 2:00PM PDT / 1400 until 10:00PM PDT / 2200

Where: La Jolla Shores

Sponsor: San Diego Wikimedians User Group ( US-SAN )

Your host:

Please add your username to our attendees list so we know how many will be attending, and please add your intended potluck contribution to the list.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject San Diego at 18:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC). You can unsubscribe from future invitations to San Diego Wikimedians User Group events by removing your name from the WikiProject San Diego mass mailing list, and from the Southern California meet-up group by removing your name from the LA meet-ups mailing list.

Trying to clean the toilet
Thanks for this; unfortunately as long as there are editors like adding and restoring poorly-sourced material to BLPs, and the community thinking this is ok, Wikipedia will be vulnerable to external forces which it may well find very uncomfortable. I despair at the direction it has gone; it was such a noble idea. So long, and thanks again. --69.120.40.196 (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Don Markstein's Toonopedia
Can you suggest a more precise category for this? Otherwise I think it fits best into Category:American webcomics, because that is what its about.Rathfelder (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The site was not particularly about webcomics. The first category already listed for it, Websites about comics, is the best. If you need an American one, go with Category:American entertainment websites. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Rocky De La Fuente
Rocky De La Fuente is not a perennial candidate. He ran for 9 senate seats to prove how ridiculous the residency requirements are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joewendt (talk • contribs) 00:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Hunter Biden censorship
You say don't just "edit war" regarding the truth about Hunter Biden but "find consensus." What consensus can there be? Some people simply don't want to allow bad facts to come out regarding Hunter Biden. Hunter ADMITTED that he only got the job at Burisma because he's father's last name is Biden. To keep that out is shameful censorship. Also it is dishonest to not allow a reference to Joe Biden bragging about getting a Ukrainian prosecutor fired on a page that claims Donald Trump "falsely" claimed Joe Biden bragged about stopping a prosecution. Clearly that is what Trump was talking about. While it is a matter of opinion as to whether or not the firing stopped the prosecution of Burisma, it is fact that Biden bragged about the getting the prosecutor fired and it is fact that shortly after that prosecutor was fired, the investigation into Burisma ended with Burisma entering a settlement agreement to pay over 1 million U.S. dollars in back taxes. Nakedtruth (talk) 15:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I somehow misstated my request that you follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines in such a way that you understood it as a request to come rant at me on my talk page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Nat Gertler at WP:COIN
Rocky's campaign is unhappy with you but can't figure out how to post the required notice. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 16:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was at COIN anyway and saw that pretty quickly. (Apparently, not all experts on explaining Wikipedia policies to others are good at Wikipedia policy...) --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

email
Interesting Gettysburg topic. I sent over an unrelated email, this one without a soundtrack. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

CESNUR article
Since you recently commented on the ANI thread about an organized promotion effort related to CESNUR, I'd like to ask you to help review that organization's article here on Wikipedia. In an attempt to comply with the spirit of WP:CANVAS, the same message is being sent to everyone who commented on the ANI thread, and no specific editing-conflict is being referenced: the article could simply benefit from more eyeballs. Feoffer (talk) 08:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Pizza
It really depends on the kind of pizza, clearly. 50% of a Hawaiian is a serious offense, for me at least. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

January 2020
Hello, I'm BeenAroundAWhile. I noticed that you recently removed content from Attempted assassination of Donald Trump without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please don't remove important information from WP articles, as you did in this article. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BeenAroundAWhile. I noticed that you recently removed content from Attempted assassination of Donald Trump without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please don't remove important content from WP articles without a good reason being noted in the Edit summary, particularly the name of the person about whom the article is written. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Note to anyone looking in: the article in question had a title claiming a crime had been committed. What was removed was the name of an otherwise-unnotable living individual who the article suggested had committed said crime, despite never having been charged with it. The accusation was a BLP issue, (and BLP issue was noted in the edit summary, and was already in discussion on the talk page); see WP:BLPCRIME for a better understanding. The page in question has since been renamed to avoid the BLP problem. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi there
I see that you've recently added a new section to Robert Flanders it's good information be it's unverifiable because it's unreferenced "WP:V ". If you would add some references it would be great other wise I'll revert the changes. Cheers Jezzy-lam (talk) 08:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert for Abortion
Doug Weller talk 13:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Nat.
Thanks for your note about editing our Wikipedia page. As you noted, I work for the Environmental Working Group. Our page is repeatedly altered/edited by groups and individuals associated with the chemical and pesticide industries.

I understand your concerns about making edits suggested by a connected contributor. However, my main concern is that most published criticism of EWG on our Wiki page comes from groups funded by chemical and pesticide companies that are hostile to EWG's research. Groups that frequently criticise EWG include the Genetic Literacy Project and the American Council on Science and Health, which are funded by chemical manufacturers, and Chemist’s Corner/Perry Romanowski, who never provides sources and has produced some dubious science in the past.

Can I send you some suggests edits for our page?

Thanks,

Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Formuzis (talk • contribs) 15:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * For a number of reasons (including that I'm hoping to reduce my Wikipedia involvement in the near future), you should not be requesting that I myself make those edits. Rather, you should read over our guide on how connected or paid contributors can request an edit, which involves posting to the Talk page of the article. That way, it will be seen by a larger set of editors. Request individual edits, and be specific. Be prepared for the likelihood that not every request you make will be done (that's not any comment on the requests that you are likely to make, just a reflection on the way these things generally go.) And thank you for understanding our concerns about connected contributors directly editing an article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Cursing the fig tree
I'm sorry that my edit summary was a bit direct (and it even contained a typo, I inadvertently pressed enter while I was still editing it). However, I found surprising that an editor with your experience would accuse another editor of harassment when being the cause (in this case a tag that they needed followup about). Asking someone to stop pinging is fine though, of course... Regards, — Paleo Neonate  – 13:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * - It's good to know that you, as an experienced Wikipedia editor, think it's appropriate for someone to harangue an editor for not doing a same-day responses on a non-urgent matter. And that you consider that the problem with using an edit summary to criticize another issue with an editor isn't that it isn't what an edit summary is for, but that it's somehow "too direct". --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for File:Hank Ketcham cartoon from golf program.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Hank Ketcham cartoon from golf program.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like (to release all rights),  (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * File copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 16:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020
Your recent editing history at Klik‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Yallayallaletsgo (talk) 02:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23
I think you're trying to be helpful and thanks for that. But you need to be aware that Elizium has been quite threatening to me elsewhere (see the incident he recorded on the administration pages). He said that he had complained to his priest about me in confession about how angry I make him. This is weird and kind of unsettling behaviour. I've shown forbearance and have tried to be reasonable. I appreciate your interventions and I hope I've shown that I have tried to be constructive throughout - not threatening or aggressive. But we probably need to draw a line under this particular discussion. Thanks again. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The image you wish to portray does not match the actions that I have seen. Someone seeking spiritual help for anger does not seem at any way inappropriate, nor do I see how it is a threat to you. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll decide what I find threatening but thanks for your interest :) Contaldo80 (talk) 03:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

May 2020
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Since when do 2ndary sources need 3rd party validation
Hi there! You just removed a source I added to Jesselyn Radack, citing that (paraphrased) "the relevance of secondary sources need to be justified by a third party source".

Can you please cite the WP:Rule for justifying this "third party rule"? Because I'm not aware of the existance of such a rule, and in my opinion, this 3rd-party rule can be used to remove any source - especially if one has a bias against Fox News, for example. Thanks in advance. Rechtsstreitigkeiten (talk) 05:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Big text == Extremely disappointed in your conduct on Jesselyn Radack ==

I am extremely disappointed in your removal of a sentence before consensus was reached. You made a claim, which happened to be false, and arbitrarily removed a sentence. If you want to remove the sentence then I suggest you open a debate. Otherwise, you've just appointed yourself as judge, jury and executioner. This is Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is a democracy. Thanks for honoring that. Rechtsstreitigkeiten (talk) 16:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, you don't seem to have understood WP:BRD. You were bold in adding the sentence, you got reverted, and at that point the sentence should have remained out until consensus was reached.
 * Also, you are incorrect in your claim that Wikipedia is a democracy. See WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

photo update
Hi Nat,

I purely want to update a photo that is in my bosses current wiki page. we own the photo, there are no copyright issues, I purely want to update the photo however everytime I do, it's rejected.

I appreciate your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevesAssistantHeidi (talk • contribs) 22:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Heidi!
 * Probably the easiest way to make the photo available to us is for it to be tweeted out on Stephen's account or posted on a media page of a website (does he have a website) with the text "This picture released into the public domain under the CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) license at https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ". Then post a link on my talk page to that tweet, and I'll get it onto Wikimedia. Of course, if you do that anyone can use the picture for any purpose. If you folks wish to maintain copyright, then we'll have to figure out who the copyright attribution belongs to, and I can help you build a better tag line for it -- but realize that any license that would be acceptable to Wikipedia would allow others broad rights to it anyway.
 * As for having that be the photo that ends up on the page, that's something that you folks don't get the final decision on. Wikipedia isn't like, say, LinkedIn; by working for the person the page is about, you actually have less control than most editors on what is accepted on the page. (That may sound like a strange way of doing it, but imagine what the Donald Trump page would look like if he had control over it!) My personal preference remains for the older photo, which shows him larger (although with the right rights, we could create a cropped version of this new photo) and he seems more personable and less lost-looking. However, it would only take one other editor without a conflict of interest to overrule me on that. (And we could end up with both photos in different places on the page.)
 * Let me know if you have any questions! (And please realize that my goal is not to be a pain in the neck, but Wikipedia is often dealing with folks pulling shenanigans, including folks claiming rights to pictures they don't own and folks claiming to represent people they don't actually work for. So what you're seeing is caution.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

photo update 2
Hi Nat, I'm still trying to update a photo on a profile. The photo belongs to my boss, the page is about my boss, but I still can't upload it and keep it as his profile photo. Also, I can't reply to any of your previous messages. Is there no simple reply option?? thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevesAssistantHeidi (talk • contribs) 15:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you look at the header above this section, where it now says "photo update 2" (because I had two sections named "photo update", which causes problems), you should probably see a link marked "edit"; click that, and you'll be able to edit this section, and thus place your comment as a reply to this comment. If you don't see "edit" there, then just click the edit at the top of the page, and you'll be able to put your response into any section that you want. (If you're using Wikipedia through a mobile device rather than a computer, it may be a bit trickier.) But if you read the section just above this one, you'll already see my best advice for getting that photo in. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Nat - he doesn't have a website, his updated photo is on LinkedIn, but i can't add your suggested text to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevesAssistantHeidi (talk • contribs) 16:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Then I suggest using a photo-sharing website like flickr.com - you can upload there, set the appropriate licensing rights, and point me to it and I'll get it into the Wikipedia image base. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Burying the hatchet
Hi Nat, I agree in retrospect that my comments were ill tempered and not well construed, for which I apologise and have struck the comments. However I think you (at least in the initial conversation we had) had a misleading impression of Dr. Robinson and his activities. Currently Dr. Robinson is best well known for his work with several other academics denying the Douma chemical attack (see ), an incident in Syria which the OPCW found that 40 people died after the Assad regime dropped canisters of chlorine gas. Piers has claimed that the people who died were "murdered captives", and in an article as part of the collective of academics accused the White Helmets, a charitable organisation that engages in medical work and search and rescue in Syrian conflict zones, of "Managing a massacre". These claims, which are supported by Pro-Assad and Russian outlets but are generally thought to be disinformation by the mainstream sources, have gotten Piers significant criticism in the UK press, see , I hope that clears things up. I respect your work as an editor and I hope we can have cordial interactions in the future. Kind regards. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the reaching out.
 * However, I have no opinion one way or the other about Robinson; I was not working on his article. I have, despite your assumptions, no view on his activities beyond that it is basically any BLP subject's reasonable right to raise issues of concern about their article in the appropriate forum. I did care that you were using the BLP Noticeboard not to address the BLP issues raised, but to try to build some strange-seeming case against him. That you used ANI to go after him and are now using my talk page to criticize him lead me to suggest that you may want to step away from working on his article; it seems to be skewing your ability to work in the more careful and considered manner that you seemed to have been working in the past.
 * I too hope that we can have cordial relations in the future. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I can understand your position, as unlike most other Wikipedia editors you are notable enough to have an article on yourself, which gives you a unique perspective on BLP issues as you have had various problems with your own article. However, ultimately a line in the sand has to be drawn somewhere. If Alex Jones, wrote an entry on the BLP noticeboard kindly asking us to remove the claim that he is a conspiracy theorist, for instance, would you be sympathetic? Even after he claimed that the grieving parents who had their children killed in the Sandy Hook massacre were "crisis actors", which encouraged their harassment? Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If Alex Jones posted at BLPN, I expect I would address his request in terms of BLP policy and what reliable sources have to say, and not use it as an excuse for attacks that are irrelevant to proper handling of the issue at hand. I am free to critique him elsewhere; I need not interfere with proper Wikipedia operation to do so. If I felt so emotionally charged that I felt I could not deal with him in an manner that's appropriate to the goals of Wikipedia, I hope that I would use that as a reason to skip responding via Wikipedia at all. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that the comments at the BLP were ill tempered and considered, which is why I struck them. The BLP noticeboard discussion about Piers has been dead for a while, and has since moved to Talk:Piers Robinson where there was much more extensive discussion of the issues, and I think you can agree my comments there were for the most part reasonable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not going to even look at the edits there; I feel no need at the moment to get pulled into another page that's in the midst of some conflict. Life is full enough already. I hope that your life is filled with good things, and may you be safe and comfortable. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand, I just wanted to add some context that the discussion has moved siginificantly since the initial BLP noticeboard post, and I can totally understand not wanting to be involved or read massive paragraphs of text. Keep well. Kind regards. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Liberty Counsel
Of course it is relevant to a newspaper that a bill passed by this or that margin. Why is it relevant to an article about a group taking a contrary view? It reads as editorialising IMO, as though somehow WP thinks Liberty Counsel shouldn't have adopted a position that everyone else disagreed with. The description of their position and the bill that they opposed IS clearly relevant however.

I'm no friend of this org, nor of the political position they adopted, and am hardly going to get into a scrap about this one, but just wanted to record that a newspaper report does not have the same aims or priorities as WP.Pincrete (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's relevant because it shows where they are not in some just-a-bit-right-of-center, in-step-with-the-Republicans place, but that they are out in the outskirts in their views. It reflects where they are on the political spectrum of America of the moment. You are of course free to move on to the D portion of WP:BRD in the appropriate place, which would be Talk:Liberty Counsel --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What you say in defence, is precisely what I mean by editorialising. That the text is not their to tell me what org X believes, or said, or did, about measure Y, but rather to imply how unreasonably out-of-step org X is with others. I don't care 2p about this org and am fairly easily able to come to my own conclusion that these people are fairly wacko relative to my beliefs. What you are defending is far too often the norm these days - unfortunately IMO, but so be it. Simply a reaction and thanks for your response. Pincrete (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Focus on the Family
Hi, you reverted my edit removing the opinion of an individual who says that the tax exempt "church" status should not be allowed. Please elaborate on your rational.
 * There was nothing in the material you removed that actually made that statement, so your claim that the material stated that was false and thus insufficient reason for its removal. To discuss this, go to Talk:Focus_on_the_Family. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Award
A sincere thanks for being patiently helpful. The PSI is awarded to polite, courteous, and helpful users as a blessing for good mental health. Introduced by Psy guy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihaveadreamagain (talk • contribs) 18:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)