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]

NPPbarnstar.jpg

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.

Comic (publishing) company vs specialist publishing firm[edit]

Hi, the article about yours truly talks about "[your] specialist publishing firm called About Comics", About Comics says [...] publisher of comics and comics-related material. Is there a difference, is both to be used interchangeable, and which do you prefer? Regards. 82.113.106.203 (talk) 09:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Gary Gauthier[edit]

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

Joey Ziolkowski[edit]

Hi NatGertler! I understand what you are saying. However, the PROD was placed by Piotrus in the article Joey Ziolkowski explicitly mentioning
"Joey Ziolkowski|concern=The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..."
Further, the PROD was reverted by IP 184.81.34.30 whose contributions are dubious. He seems to be related to the person Joey Ziolkowski. CCed on my talk page. Cheers! 7Sidz (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I've responded on your talk page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

jon platt[edit]

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

Unforgetting L.A. edit-a-thon on September 6[edit]

Unforgetting L.A. edit-a-thon: Saturday, September 6 from 11am to 4pm
Armory Center for the Arts.jpg

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

You are invited to meet up with online magazine East of Borneo for an edit-a-thon to build a better history of art in Southern California. This next event in their Unforgetting L.A. series will take place on Saturday, September 6, 2014 from 11am - 4pm at the Armory Center for the Arts in Pasadena (map). Beginners welcome! Please RSVP here if you plan to attend. For more info, see eastofborneo.org/unforgetting.

I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

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

L.A. Meetup on September 21[edit]

The 20th Los Angeles meetup: Sunday, September 21 from 11am to 4pm

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

Join us on Sunday, September 21, from 11am to 4pm at Kramer Studio in Mid-City (map) for a meetup and edit-a-thon! Get to know the Los Angeles Wikipedia community and do some editing (or learn to edit!) in a collaborative environment. Please RSVP and consider becoming a member of the SoCal task force to help us improve articles about everything in the region.

I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Usually[edit]

You added "usually" to:

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

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

Will Hayden and Sons of Guns topic ban proposal for User:9711CA[edit]

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --DHeyward (talk) 20:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion of My Article Jennifer Mundel[edit]

Hello. I new to Wikipedia and I have been creating many new articles. You said you will delete my article because it is not notable but I only created it because I saw it in the list of articles that needs to be created urgently on Wikipedia. I also notice that the french version of the article is avaluable online https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Mundel. Are you saying that an article can be notable for Wikipedia French but unnotable for English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulabcie (talkcontribs) 00:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, yes, different language Wikipediae can have different notability requirements. Additionally, what I had to judge your article on was what was presented in your article, and once I eliminated the claim that she had won 3 US Opens (which would definitely have qualified her under our notability standards, but appeared to have been false), there wasn't enough there to meet our notability guidelines at WP:NTENNIS. I do not read French, so I cannot fully tell from the French article whether there is enough there to qualify her (under either the English or French guidelines.) Having said that, if you object to the deletion, you can simply eliminate the PROD tag from the article; at that point, if I wished to see the article deleted, I would have to go through the more cumbersome Articles For Deletion (AFD) process, and get agreement to it. So my suggestion to you is that you review WP:NTENNIS, and if you feel that this player meets the standards there, go ahead and delete the PROD tag from the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I have redited the article and removed the deletion proposal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulabcie (talkcontribs) 01:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
The Wimbledon information should protect it from any deletion attempt! Good job! --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Archive[edit]

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

Thanks for saying thanks[edit]

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

Edison Partners Deletion[edit]

Hi,

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

Rabbi[edit]

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)



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)
052607-014-DohenyLibrary-USC.jpg

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)