User talk:NatGertler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

FOR EARLIER POSTS see Archive 1, Archive 2

New Page Patrol survey[edit]


New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello NatGertler! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Holiday Cheer[edit]

Christmas tree.svg Holiday Cheer
Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS

October 2013[edit]

Editing glitch[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, NatGertler. You have new messages at Scwlong's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for saying thanks[edit]

Appreciated.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Edison Partners Deletion[edit]


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

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

L.A. events on October 7 and 16[edit]

Upcoming L.A. events: Wik-Ed Women edit-a-thon (10/7, 6-10pm) and UCR edit-a-thon (10/16, 10am-4pm)

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

The Southern California Wikipedia community has two exciting events coming up in the next few weeks: a Wik-Ed Women editing session downtown designed to combat systemic bias, and a Wikipedia Loves Libraries event at UC Riverside!

Wik-Ed Women is a new monthly series of informal Wikipedia editing sessions for Los Angeles women-in-the-arts (though all are welcome) to contribute their expertise to Wikipedia, specifically expanding content about women artists. This second session will take place on Tuesday, October 7 from 6pm to 10pm at the Los Angeles Contemporary Archive downtown. Please RSVP here if you plan to attend.

The UC Riverside Wikipedia Loves Libraries event is an edit-a-thon targeting articles related to UC Riverside, SoCal, and beyond. Join students and faculty learning how to edit! This event will take place on Thursday, October 16 from 10am to 4pm at UCR's Tomás Rivera Library. Again, RSVPs are requested here.

I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.


I saw [your edit] removing the title "rabbi" from the first sentence of the Eliezer Melamed article. Please understand that "rabbi" is both an academic title,which indeed per WP:CREDENTIAL should not be used in the opening sentence of an article, as well as a honorific related to clergy, which per WP:HONORIFIC is used in the opening sentence of articles. It is customary to have "rabbi" in the first sentence of articles about rabbis. Debresser (talk) 16:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that you reread WP:HONORIFIC; despite what you say, it specifically advises against including honorifics for clergy in the titles. ("In general, styles and honorifics should not be included in front of the name, but may be discussed in the article. In particular, this applies to: [...] styles and honorifics related to clergy".) --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Since you decided to take this to the talkpage of that article, I have replied there. Thank you for reacting so promptly. I will un-follow you talk page now. Debresser (talk) 17:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

of interest[edit]

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

Galerie Gmurzynska[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

SoCal edit-a-thons on October 21 and 25[edit]

Upcoming SoCal edit-a-thons: UC Riverside (10/21, 10am-3pm) and Unforgetting L.A. (10/25, 9am-5pm)

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

The Southern California Wikipedia community has two more events scheduled for the month of October: a water-related edit-a-thon at UC Riverside, and an Unforgetting L.A. event at the Los Angeles Archives Bazaar in conjunction with L.A. as Subject!

As part of Wikipedia Loves Libraries and to celebrate Open Access Week, UC Riverside is participating alongside other Western Waters Digital Library members in an edit-a-thon focusing on water issues. Join students and faculty learning how to edit! This event will take place on Tuesday, October 21 from 10am to 3pm at UCR's Orbach Science Library (map). RSVPs are requested here.

The Unforgetting L.A. edit-a-thon and training workshop will take place at the 9th annual Los Angeles Archives Bazaar, and is hosted by online magazine East of Borneo in partnership with L.A. as Subject. Join us on Saturday, October 25 from 9am to 5pm at the USC Doheny Memorial Library (map). Beginners welcome! Please RSVP here if you plan to attend.

I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

Edit war[edit]

Since you the one that redirected Alifazal to the talk page, I would like to inform you of this. AcidSnow (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. AcidSnow (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Difference between Consensus and Majority vote by established editors[edit]

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

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

Galerie Gmurzynska[edit]

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

L.A. event on November 11, and a new Facebook group[edit]

Wik-Ed Women editing session (11/11, 6-10pm), and join our new Facebook group!

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

The LA Wikipedia community has a new Facebook group! Become a member to keep up to date with all of our upcoming events and to connect with local Wikipedians!

In addition, we have one upcoming event: the third Wik-Ed Women editing session will take place on Tuesday, November 11 from 6pm to 10pm at the Los Angeles Contemporary Archive downtown. This series of informal get-togethers is designed to encourage Los Angeles women-in-the-arts (though all are welcome!) to contribute their expertise to Wikipedia, specifically expanding content about women artists. Please RSVP here if you plan to attend.

I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

L.A. event on November 11 CANCELED[edit]

Wik-Ed Women editing session CANCELED

Due to health issues affecting one of the organizers, the third Wik-Ed Women editing session (originally scheduled for Tuesday, November 11) has been canceled. We expect the series to pick up again sometime in December. Sorry for the inconvenience, and hope to see you in the near future! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

Revision of the page: Delete Skype History (software)[edit]

Revision of the page: Delete Skype History (software)[edit]

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


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

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

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

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

What does "Mark this page as patrolled" mean? SusunW (talk) 05:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

L.A. edit-a-thon this Sunday, December 14[edit]

L.A. meetup: December 14 edit-a-thon at the California African American Museum
California African American Museum sign.JPG

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

East of Borneo's "Unforgetting L.A." edit-a-thon series continues this weekend at the California African American Museum! Please join us this Sunday, December 14 from 11am to 4pm. Beginners welcome! You'll learn to create new articles that improve Wikipedia's coverage of African American art in Los Angeles, past and present. Please click here for full event details and to RSVP if you plan to attend.

I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Join our Facebook group here! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

Deprod List of feminist comic books[edit]

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from List of feminist comic books, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! There are numerous sources that discuss feminist comic books, comic books with feminist characters or feminist themes, and the articles Further reading section lists three. Lightbreather (talk) 01:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Priya's Shakti at WP:RSN[edit]

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

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