User talk:NatGertler

Eisner nomination correction

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

T:Ssm

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

Traditional Marriage Movement

FYI, I can say with some confidence that TMM is not the only article and I am not the only editor having an issue with Dr.enh's editing. In any event, do you know how to enlist an Admin to rollback Dr.enh's edits and protect the article? Does this have to be done via Administrator's Noticeboard?? Lionelt (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re the closing, the admin's closnig decision is highly questionable in both form and substance. I have courteously invited him to take a second look, but that is likely to be a mere formality and a rinse through WP:DRV is likely.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: cool down

I am quite aware of the rules but thank you for your concern. I have had editing issues with this user on other articles too. I issued the warning because the user had paid complete disregard on D.N.A (album) where he/she has added content that is not properly sourced. Rather than engage in disucssion after the content was deleted said user simply reverted the edits which is not acceptable. On the article Untitled R. Kelly album said user made an edit (changing track-listing templates) something which the user has been informed about before - we have had discussions about editing in a style and manner which is constructive and not out of personal preference. reading what you put on my talk page i realised i may have been heavy handed and i will go and make edits to my comments so that they are more constructive. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 14:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

thanks for the help

-cubfan789 14:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)~

Speedy deletion nomination of Oreo Collins

A tag has been placed on Oreo Collins requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. mhking (talk) 02:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Oreo Collins

I have nominated Oreo Collins, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oreo Collins. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. mhking (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Oreo Collins

I have nominated Oreo Collins, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oreo Collins. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. mhking (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

The only people I suggested that to were people who had contributed to the article. I thought they should know what was going on with it. grifterlake (talk) 03:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same-sex marriage

I might have accidentally erased some of your edits as we were editing at the same time; I feel like we just created Same-sex marriage and the family and that the argument is better hashed out over there since we are trying to tame the sections. -->David Shankbone 04:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nat. I could use your opinion on the wording of the following edit.[1] It's the first two sentences of the Ancient History section. Also, this seems neutral, no?Ragazz (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nat there is something I've been meaning to ask you and since we've smoothen out our heated argument I thought now would be the appropriate time. On your bio page your write "I'm most frequently found on comics and same-sex marriage topics", just curious, what interests you in the SSM topics? -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 17:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Show Boat

Sir, I am working on the article Show Boat you were a little quick of the draw on your editing.... Dutchdean (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SSM

Hey, I have done further research and trimmed some things on my edits to the article. I will post them fewer at a time so that they can be addressed individually- but I would like to submit them only to you (so that I do not have a certain someone filibustering me with false accusations and generalization and misinterpretations of what I have said without even reading my arguments.)

Once you and I have arrived closer to the truth, or at least a fair way to provide information on both sides of the argument, then I can put it on the discussion page without having to delay to address foundationless claims and misunderstandings.

I suspect the best way to accomplish this is by email correspondence. You have mine now that I have posted, if I understood what a wiki info page said, yes? (MatLocke (talk) 05:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]