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

Holiday Cheer

		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

Wikipedia Meetup

You are invited to "Come Edit Wikipedia!" at the West Hollywood Library on Saturday, July 27th, 2013. There will be coffee, cookies, and good times! -- Olegkagan (talk) — Message delivered by Hazard-Bot at 04:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Response to Peanuts

Have corrected this per your request as to the future of the Peanuts strips. Thanks. Hiphats (talk) 04:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Red Links

I should have explained it better on the editor's page. Most of the candidates that they attempted to link to are unknown candidates that really have no reason to have a wikipedia page and almost certainly will never have one created. They are not people considered major contenders or notable for anything significant. I will continue to remove red links for people like that. If there is a reason for them to have a page and it is reasonable that one may be made, then I will leave it up. Rxguy (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

List of comics publishing companies

Hi, since you`re one of the main contributors to said list, i`m very interested in your opinion regarding Column for "Titles". Thanks in advance, regards, Gott 20:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Please stop copying material from other sites

Thank you for editing the page I was working on and for including information regarding your policy on copyright. It was not my intention to copy copyrighted material from other sites. I've read through a lot of the Help pages including BLP, Notability (People), Secondary Sources, etc. and still had a hard time figuring out how to include the biographical information. Hjmalan (talk) 22:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Meetup

Help build the Wikipedia community in Southern California at "Come Edit Wikipedia!" presented by the West Hollywood Library on Saturday, August 31st, 2013 from 1-5pm. Drop in for some lively editing and conversation! Plus, it's a library, so there are plenty of sources. --Olegkagan (talk) — Message delivered by Hazard-Bot at 02:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

2012 Democratic National Convention

Good catch! The correct numbers seem to be 5,554 and 2,778 and I just edited the article to show those numbers. I tracked down the edit that changed 2,778 to 2,777 but the total number seems never to have been correct.Neonorange (talk) 00:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the inconvenience - I thought the section above my original placement looked odd for a talk page! Neonorange (talk) 02:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem. We all err. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Invention

Hello, NatGertler. You are invited to join WikiProject Invention, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of inventions and invention-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Mustafa Shameel article

Hi, I'm new to making articles in Wikipedia and I mainly wanted to test the article on my grandfather (Dr. Shameel) not knowing that it cannot be deleted after testing how it works since I was planning on taking it off after seeing how things work on Wikipedia. Although, I want you to delete the article and I will make sure it will be in my own words from now on. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rashmi Khaliq (talk • contribs) 21:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh alright that's great! Thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rashmi Khaliq (talk • contribs) 22:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Lusaka Voice

Hello NatGertler. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Lusaka Voice, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

PROD of Keven Santos

Hi Nat. Thought you might like to know that your prod on Keven Santos was deleted by the page creator - albeit without any explanation/comment. Anyway, I have now taken it to AFD if you are interested in contributing.--Korruski^Talk 11:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Nathan Finch Ballard

Hi NatGertler, I'm asking you to withdraw your speedy deletion nomination. I wasn't aware the article had been created previously, but I did just review the deletion discussion. It appears the initial article was very promotional in nature, which is one of the reasons it was deleted in the first place. I have completely rewritten this stub in a very dry and encyclopedic way, which should disqualify it from the g4 criteria which says that the article is "substantially identical to the deleted version" and "any changes do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted". As I don't have access to the earlier version of the article, it's impossible for my rewritten draft to be identical. But I know the existing article is not promotional. Anyway, I hope you take my request into account, and review the g4 criteria. Thanks CitizenNeutral (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I will not been removing the nomination; while I don't have access to the original article, I can see from the deletion discussion that the previous deletion was essentially for notability, based mainly on the same claims made in the new article, and that the additional claims in the new article are to minor references to the subject.

You are, of course, free to contest the deletion, by going to the page and clicking on the button marked for doing so. May I suggest that, if you do so, you do so with scrupulous honesty? This method of stating to me that you weren't "aware the article had been created previously", when your edit summary for creating it in the first place is "restoring deleted article with new content", makes it difficult to assume good faith on your part. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nat, I've already contested the deletion. And it appears there is confusion. There now two (deleted) versions of the article that have been created: Nathan Finch Ballard, the article which was deleted as g5 and that I attempted to restore, and Nathan Ballard, which resulted in the deletion discussion that I had not seen. Please note the difference. I hope this clarifies your comment about scrupulous honesty. Have a good day! CitizenNeutral (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

@Nat: FYI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 00:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Renzo Gadola Redux Redux

I've been learning a lot. You're the first person to get me to dig into what constitutes a proper bio for a living person. I'm going to make one more pitch (cite a couple examples of similar people, talk about my idea of a "Big" Wikipedia that is based on browsing to come up with new knowledge which is how I found out about Gadola in the first place), but it seems that a consensus is emerging (that it should be part of a larger article; your comment on "Coat Hanger" is teaching me a lot, as well as your constructive feedback). Can I ask you to extend the debate for one more week? I will respect your (and the others') ultimate decision. Your role here is not to be a teacher, but this is a learning experience for me and will improve my efficacy as both an editor and a contributor. Thanks!Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Shemplet: I may have launched the deletion boat for the article, but I am no longer the one steering it. The question of whether discussion will be held over for another week will be in the hands of some third party, who takes a look at the article and sees the state of the discussion. So far, absolutely no one has stated that the article should be kept... including yourself. As such, it would be hard for the reviewing admin to find any reason to extend discussion. If your goal is to keep the article as is, I suggest you add an entry to the discussion that starts with the word Keep in bold like that and then goes on to explain why the individual meets WP:GNG, and if possible why the concerns of WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIMINAL. But if I were you, I'd be looking at the fact that this biography is solely about his relation to this USB situation (there's nothing about how he was raised, his other jobs, his family) and start thinking "this is really an article about the USB situation", and if there should be an article about this situation (I am placing no judgment on it one way or the other, I have not done research toward that end) it is best to use this as a base. In that case, instead of asking for a keep on this, I would be adding a message to the article that says Userfy so that I might use this as a base for building an article on the USB scandal.

Think about it this way: you asked what if someone wanted to know about Gadola in the future. Is there anything that leads us to believe that they will want to know about him except in relation to this crime? If not, wouldn't the best place to put this information about him - which is solely about his relationship to the crime - be in the context of an article on the crime? --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Once again, thanks for the feedback. It will enable me to do better work in the future! It seems like the best course is for it to be part of a general article on UBS tax evasion (there is a similar article about their rogue tradings scandal.Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 15:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort to improve Wikipedia, and for taking this all in the spirit with which it was intended. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes! It has been a real learning experience! I will have questions for you in the future about bios.Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Quick Question

Hey Nat, I am the guy who created that Dean Andrew Kantis article. I'm sorry for adding the contentious material twice without a solid source. The doctor filed a lawsuit again DAK. The lawsuit is on a website LasikFDA, but I cannot add a link because the website is blacklisted on Wikipedia. Can I use this as a reference for adding the fact that DAK was treated by Nick and that afterwards the latter sued the former. You gave a good Simpsons example, but I am not sure if this source can be used or not. If you want to take a look at the lawsuit, I will upload it to Wikipedia and you can see it. Thanks for the help.Muhammad Ali Khalid (talk) 10:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Muhammad, I'm glad you asked.

• Lawsuit filings are inherently problematic as reliable sources. By their very nature, they are designed to show one side of a contended issue.
• Relying on a copy of a filing form a blacklisted site seems to compound the situation, as sited tend to get blacklisted for having been involved in some sort of sketchy behavior.
• BLP problems can be caused by creating implications by mixing material from sources. Consider these two statements:

1. Homer was the man in Bart's room.
2. The man in Bart's room stole Bart's Butterfinger

Now, we may say that only #1 is a BLP statement, and thus that is the only one that needs to be so rigorously sourced. Let us assume for this case that it is, that it's been directly reported by the ever respectable Springfield Post-News. However, the placement of #1 and #2 together create the clear implication that Homer stole the Butterfinger. We have a problem when we're making any new unsourced statement by implication. We have an even stronger problem when #2 is not rigorously sourced, when all the sources are telling us is that Bart says that the man in his room stole his Butterfinger.

There are a number of things in the article that have that sort of sourcing problem; I only chomped enough to take care of the severe WP:BLP problem. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the response Nat. It's pretty clear. About the resources in that article, I will check them again, see the Wiki guidelines and try to improve them with time.Muhammad Ali Khalid (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Just to thank you for your help! Muhammad Ali Khalid (talk) 10:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Sourov0000. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, DMM FX Australia, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Sourov0000 (talk) 20:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

degree verification

I've paid for the National Student Clearinghouse to verify online with a pdf from my alma mater my degree, which is currently not shown on the page about me (Steven L. Thompson). I can provide you the email address and Order ID you need to get to the verification so you can change the listing properly to credit me with my BA, since someone saw fit to take it down. Please let me know if you'd care to do that. Ttrider87 (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Ttrider87Ttrider87 (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Nat.

No, I was involved in a near-fatal collision with a car on St. Margaret's Road in Annapolis at about 8:38pm on 27 May 2004 and am permanently crippled. I write for Cycle World frequently (see my article on pioneer motorcycle racer (first Yank at the TT and almost won it! in the Oct issue in Racewatch, for example), and my riding is only possible on three-wheelers. I bought the 2010 Can-Am Spyder RT-S we had for long-term CW test and ride it to test riding gear (like the recent online review of a Dainese Racing Pelle jacket, for instance) and just to have what fun I can. I officially gave up racing in 1992, and held an AMA Pro Expert International Racing license at the time. I just tried to upload a photo of me on my 350cc Shepherd-Kawasaki GP bike to the Wiki page but don't know if it worked. My friend Gordon Keown, who shot many good photos for me when I edited C/D, Road Test, and Cycle Guide, as well as for CW when we went back to the TT in '87, did the photo in Oct. '71 and went online to the Wiki site needed and gave me the license, which I'll upload to the required place soon. Dunno if the photo even got up yet.

Anyway, thanks, and good riding to you!

-- Steve Thompson Ttrider87 (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Ttrider87Ttrider87 (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but the article Chitwanix_OS is an article of a Software

Hello NatGerler,

The article Chitwanix_OS must not be deleted because, it is an article of information of the software which is Open Source. We haven't written it as an promotional or any vulgar activities. So, please don't remove the article !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyasi.arun (talk • contribs) 03:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

SPEEDY DELETION

(Note: The following was posted on my user page; I have transferred it here to my talk page. --Nat) Wikipedia has sunk to a new low. I've been working on publishing a short article on Kasey Lansdale's new record and I've just started in less than 30 minutes to ago and I'm already being bombed with speedy deletions. At least you fascist book burners could do is wait until the article is complete. I've been editing Wikipedia for a few years so I'm no newbie. Things have really gotten out of hand with all these threats being made with the anonymity of the Internet. One one hand Wiki cries out that it's slowly dying and needs to be revitalized by attracting new editors and urging current editors to contribute more. Yet this is the bullshit people have to deal with and it's not a big secret that these actions are discouraging. I'm really on the vergo of just hanging it up. Nice Job!!! PKDASD (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The difficulties in establishing a new article are why we recommend that new users construct new pages in their private space, get them ready to go, and then transfer them into main space. I'd be glad to help you set up a page in private space, if you wish.

The page was over an hour old when it was marked for deletion, and at that point was a very short paragraph that didn't look like it was being updated. Would you have been any less frustrated to have expanded it into a longer article, only to have it deleted then?

When you see that an article has been nominated for speedy deletion, while I understand the desire to lash out, it is likely to be more effective if you post on the talk page of the article why it should not be deleted. As it happens, when you posted this message on my user page, the page had not yet been deleted.

I am unclear what you're alluding to with "all these threats being made with the anonymity of the Internet." As far as I can tell, no threats have been made; all that was done was editing of Wikipedia. Nor was anything done with anonymity; my name was placed on the call for deletion, was placed on your talk page to notify you on the deletion, it was on the page that you edited to place this complaint. The editor who actually deleted the article did so using his first initial and last name, and his user page has a link to a page that gives his full first and last name. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean "lash out". While not "newbie" I still don't have a firm grasp as to follow the protocol as to go about justifying the validity of an article. I've run into these situations more than once. The vast majority of my articles have not been an issue. I also understand the reason Wikipedia has to be monitored to prevent abuse and conflicts of interests. Nothing personal, but it tends to be a human response to become upset when an article someone posts is rejected before the article is even complete. I'm not going to remove myself from editing Wikipedia, bit I also realize I have a lot to learn. Any tips would be welcome. BTW I still do need to add and hopefully improve the Kasey Lansdale article. Again, no hard feelings. PKDASD (talk) 00:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. By the way, what lead to the speedy deletion turns out to have been a simple mistake... you made a typo in the name of the artist (something you later did in the title of your replacement article; I've corrected that, as well as a few other fixes on that article.) With no sources to go off of, it looked like this was an album with no claim of notability for an artist who didn't have a Wikipedia page, which qualifies it for speedy deletion. The new article could not be speedy deleted on those terms, as Ms. Lansdale does have an article, as you well know. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Best PKDASD (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Mass transforming into gravity

I have taken this to AfD because it has been in before and PRODded, and I explained WP:NOR to the author then; taking it to AfD means that it if he then persists in re-posting it can be speedied. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Deprodding of Quantel Lotts

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Quantel Lotts, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!

Hi Nat, I've removed the deletion tag you placed on the article I recently created, Quantel Lotts, after reading the notability guidelines you suggested at WP:CRIMINAL and thinking about the issue. Obviously I thought Lotts' case was significant beforehand, since I wrote the article. Nevertheless I think the series of articles written by The New York Times and The Guardian particularly highlight the way in which Lotts' case is seen as emblematic of the problem of life imprisonment for juveniles specifically, and for the treatment of juveniles more generally in the U.S. judicial system.

Following your tag, and reading the guidelines you referenced, I'll work to make those links (following the NYT and Guardian) more explicit. -Darouet (talk) 02:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Deprodding of The Quest for Juice

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from The Quest for Juice, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. Instead, I have started a deletion discussion at Regarding notability, I've added links to sites which mention it., which you may comment on. I have explained my reasons for doing so there. Thanks! Jaydeecw (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

I'm sorry Nat, you are one of the two people I had a disagreement with and then offered me advice. When I found out that truth is not a requirement I really wanted nothing to do with editing on Wikipedia anymore. We have already discussed this. I feel without truth that Wikipedia will never be what it strives to be. Yesterday I am looking something up on Google and sure enough there is a Wikipedia Article. I click on the article, my account shows up and my notification icon is red with 1 in it. I look at it. It says "I have raised concerns about some of your edits". I read through until I see my posting name and read " and Gibco65 (talk · contribs), an account that appeared for the sole purpose of !voting "keep"." Now not to dispute what you have written but you wrote " so he raised the possibility of yours being an inappropriate so that the investigation could be followed through on. " I'm sorry but that's not the way I read his quote. " and Gibco65 (talk · contribs), an account that appeared for the sole purpose of !voting "keep"." is not that he raised the possibility, it is a an outright accusation. There is no other way to interpret it. While Bob was on his witch-hunt he accused me of making an account to vote Keep. I even was part of a sockpuppet investigation. First I'm a meatpuppet and then I'm a sockpuppet. It seems to me that in stating my opinion all that happened was I was called puppet names. What is it with Wikipedia and puppets? There seems to be a strange fascination. I did state "You did stumble upon a "editor" that listed his services for money. That is the one thing that I will give you credit for." which was not exactly a compliment, there is a hint of sarcasm in there. Another thing that bothers me is "I believe that Gibco65 & Rogerdavis101 are also socks, brought in to !vote "keep" when a couple of the promotional articles went to AfD." which is something I just found out about. These are not suspicions at all, they are outright false claims. When I went to bobrayners talk page, it seems he has a lot of issues with a bunch of people. Basically I feel he owes me an apology. My only cause in throwing a tantrum was to clear my name from a outright lie. He didn't raise an eyebrow, he smeared my account. This is why I want nothing to do with Wikipedia. I find it amusing, I see mistakes all the time but hey if I have an opinion I'll just keep it to myself. It's been a month and what was a AfD discussion on Notability all of a sudden became an article with serious neutrality problems. Bobrayner is all over the place and during his witch-hunt he found his witch, Muhammad Ali Khalid. He gets a one week block for offering to write on Wikipedia for money? What would be my penalty if I told Bob what I really thought of him? With you I threw a tantrum and later apologized, my reaction to this blatantly false accusation was actually pretty calm. I'm sorry but I really feel he owes me an apology. The guy might be the keeper of the watch but he accused me of pretty much being a shill and liar. He didn't raise that possibility, he outright said it. Anyway regards and have a good holiday, the Christmas stuff is already up in the stores. Gibco65 (talk) 05:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I do have one more question. What does Gibco and Rogerdavis are Unlikely to each other exactly mean? I do not know Rogerdavis or of him. What exactly does "Unlikely to each other" mean? Gibco65 (talk) 14:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)