User talk:NatGertler

FOR EARLIER POSTS see Archive 1, Archive 2

Speedy deletion of APpedia

Hi, it is a copy left encyclopedia under a license similar to 'Creative Commons — Attribution', also I can get permission from the editorial team if needed. This is the copy right information page: http://appedia.arc.capn-online.info/pmwiki.php?n=%E4%BD%BF%E7%94%A8%E6%89%8B%E5%86%8C.%E7%89%88%E6%9D%83%E8%AF%B4%E6%98%8E — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23dx5assd (talk • contribs) 06:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC) How to get the article back?

Eisner nomination correction

Nat -- thanks for the note on your Eisner nomination -- that's fixed now. Kenllama/(talk) 02:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

T:Ssm

Thx. Ur right. I fixed it Anarchangel (talk) 11:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

tb

Hello, NatGertler. You have new messages at Ctjf83's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

New Page Patrol survey

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

Focus on the Family dispute

Hi Nat. I'm not sure why Still left you out of this, but since you clearly understand the issues, I think you should join in the discussion at the dispute resolution that he started. Belchfire (talk) 04:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

FotF

In case you didn't see, FotF has gone back to DRN. Why don't you join in, once it gets started? Belchfire-TALK 17:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

FYI

I've put in a request for temporary, but full page protection for Universal Life Church. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Probably a good call. We'll see if it sticks. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Condolences

An army of sockpuppets

I am sorry to hear that you have apparently been banned. That is certainly surprising news. I'm also sorry to hear that you are part of a sockpuppet account conspiracy. That's surprising, too. I thought you were Nat Gertler the Comic Book Guy, but apparently, you are an army of sockpuppets. Is there anything else we should know? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it certainly is a shame to have been detected and to be unable to post this message. Particularly after having spent years diligently editing Wikipedia before touching the ULC page, just so I can lay cover for my eventual radical edits there, such as correcting the capitalization on headers and telling people to take it to the talk page rather than edit warring.

Sometimes its interesting to watch people who are making shit up... first there's a stage where they think they might not get detected, then there's the stage where it's detected but IF THEY REPEAT IT LOUD ENOUGH they might still convince vital folk, and then it sometimes slip into a stage where they are really trying to convince people that even though everyone sees it's false, they still really believe it so it's not lying. In this case, I'm still trying to figure out whether he was (and remains) so convinced of an actual assumption that it didn't matter that he was making up the proof for it, or whether it was simply if he kept flinging accusations against people who were calling for deletion, he'd win the war anyway. But that unblock request... boy, did the account of Jordan Francis die as it had lived!

Gotta love the "I know who you are" attack. Signing my own damn name to each and every post, it must take a major detective to figure out who I am. (One of these years, I'm planning to make a Halloween costume of myself - but a 1970s storebought kids costume version, so it's a badly painted mask that kind of looks like me, and a vinyl vest with a photo of me and my name on it. That's my disguise!)

Congratulations on naming who he was... now if you had just known when you'd done it. That would give you the magical ability to force him to spin straw into gold. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

NOM - Hate Group debate

I reverted the page back because I found a reference straight from Southern Poverty Law Center citing the organization as a hate group. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/the-hard-liners Jackal242 (talk) 05:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

As I note elsewhere, that is a list of "anti-gay" groups; only the ones marked with an asterisk are designated as "hate" groups. The NOM entry bears no such asterisk, and as I've noted on the talk page, the SPLC later reiterated that NOM had not qualified for the hate designation. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, NatGertler. You have new messages at Theopolisme's talk page.
Message added 11:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

<blush> Theopolisme _{TALK 11:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)}

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion

Hello, NatGertler. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is An Uncivil Threesome. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

For the record in my own files: here is where the accuser specifically revoked the Wikiquette accusation against me. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

David Barton (author): Use of "fact" tags

You recently used a bunch of "fact" tags on David Barton (author). While I appreciate your concern about keeping Wikipedia accurate, checking a number of the places where you put "fact" tags I found the relevant fact in the next listed reference following where you placed the tag. Additionally, you put "fact" tags in the lead; per WP:WHYCITE, "Citations are also often discouraged in the lead section of an article, insofar as it summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article". Something like the claim that Barton is a best-selling author needn't be cited in the lead as it is cited in a later section. I have undone your edits en mass as time is tight on my end; you may wish to review your concerns, check the references, and restore any individual fact tags for material that is still not found in the listed sources. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. You appear to have a WP:POV on this article, and "not having the time" is not an excuse to not palce the correct WP:CITE in place. I have therefore reverted your assumptive edit, and placed notes on the articles talkpage. I hope when you have time to respect the process and avoid your own POV, that the correct cites can be put in place. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 14:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Glora Fox

Hi NatGetler. Thanks for helping with the phrasing of the new page on Gloria Fox! I am excited to see another editor help out with the Massachusetts General Court bio page work. I am wondering if you'd be OK with me re-inserting the piece about Fox not having faced a general election opponent. At such a late hour of the night I wasn't paying good enough attention to my phrasing and, upon review, it does sound like I ignored the fact that she ran against Bunte. In actuality, she has not faced a general election opponent SINCE 1986. I'd love to put it back in considering A) I feel it's an important aspect of her career, and B) I took the time to check every Massachusetts elections statistics publication since then. I can cite all of them if you deem it necessary. Just wanted to reach out and get your thoughts, since you made the edit. Thanks for your help. Rjp422 (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Flags and Same-sex marriage legislation around the world

Could you give your opinion here? Ron 1987 (talk) 01:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

El Naschie

Hi - I've proposed some changes to the article Mohamed El Naschie on the article's talk page. Since you've commented on previous discussions on that page, I'd appreciate your input on this one. All the best, Markus Poessel (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter

Hey NatGertler. I'm dropping you a note because you used to (or still do!) patrol new pages. This is just to let you know that we've deployed and developed Page Curation, which augments and supersedes Special:NewPages - there are a lot of interesting new features :). There's some help documentation here if you want to familiarise yourself with the system and start using it. If you find any bugs or have requests for new features, let us know here. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Hotspot Shield

Hi Nat. Thank you for your feedback regarding the Hotspot Shield article. Could you please let me know which sections to modify or delete from the entry? I can add more public statistics or info-graphics, or I can also add whole section about the controversies so far. I would really appreciate any suggestion or guidance you can give me regarding this. Could you please userfy the page or email me a copy so I can start making it more neutral? Thank you in advance for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miroslav303 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Nat, re your request on my talk page. I have reviewed the deleted material again, and in my opinion, it is so promotional (and apparently professionally written) that I cannot take the responsibility of even userfying it where it would still be visible on Wikipedia to those who might find it.

I can however offer to email a copy of it to the author on the understanding that s/he must make a local draft first on their own computer that complies fully with our policies at Neutrality and Advertising, our criteria for inclusion at General Notability Guidelines and Notability for Comapanies and that coverage in number, depth, and focus is adequately provided by our guidelines for Reliable Sources - and that Conflict of Interest (if applicable) is taken into consideration. The draft should then be posted their user space where it will be reviewed by an admin before being moved to mainspace. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no objections to that solution. Frankly, I do not recall the article in question, and will take your word that it is fundamentally promotional (and really, I'm taking my own word since I flagged it as such.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that sounds perfect. Please email me the copy and I will change it locally. Then I will upload it to my user space for your review. Thanks so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miroslav303 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to follow up to this: do we email you or some other admin regarding this, or will you email us the info? Just making sure I'm not missing any notifications or sections here on Wikipedia where one of you may have responded to us. Thanks again.

Regarding Your Revert of my Change to Same-sex marriage in the United States

Hi. This is regarding your revert of my change to Same-sex marriage in the United States. My edit summary wasn't completely clear, what I was trying to indicate is that not only was the way it was previously written likely to become not true at any given point in the future, but it is probably not even true right now. As the latest polls regarding the issue show that Americans are statistically evenly split on the issue as the latest Gallup Poll that tracks the issue indicates that 50% are in favor and 48% are opposed with a margin or error of +/- 3%. My source is the latest Gallup Poll regarding the issue. Many articles on Wikipedia that reference Polls usually misinterpret them as one poll, or even a group of polls, do not necessarily prove anything and one should look at the polling methodology closely before stating opinions about conclusions about what the poll "proves" and then stating these conclusions as if their fact. Also, I disagree with your statement about articles not needing to be always true (although fair point about bios., for example it may say they alive but they could die at any given point). I think the way I had it written not only would be true now, but would be true even if the polls change again. I will not undo your revert, but I will open a discussion on the articles talk page regarding the fact that the most recent poll shows a statistical dead heat and that the Gallup Polls only indicate that a majority were in favor for about one year (2011).

If you still think I'm wrong and your right, then please join the discussion on the Talk Page (which I will be opening shortly). However, if you want to take the most recent polls indicating a statistical dead-heat into consideration and reword the sentence, then I will remove my objection on the relevant Talk Page. With Thanks, King of Nothing (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)