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?[reply]

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]

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

My course assignment

Hey, thanks for your concern. I already got a grade today, a B. I showed my instructor the page you suggested and he promised to keep it in mind for future reference. I'll try and make my article better even though it was already graded, since I'm a dedicated fan of Mike Mozart. Any sggestions on how can I improve it (besides additional sources) would be appreciated. xoxo — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuliaParis (talk • contribs) 10:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For doing what was needed to rescue references on Proposition 8. Thanks. Amadscientist (talk) 23:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I'm holding off on fixing more of the dead links at the moment because the article is in heavy editing mode at the moment, thanks to today's event. Better to do it when not tripping over other editors. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Whisperback

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

Homer was the man in Bart's room.
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

A cookie for you!

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

October 2013

I actually was just trying state my opinion on this subject and nothing else. Then you put Gibco65 has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD while I'm being attacked by Lesion. I have a right to take place in the discussion and yet I get attacked. I was not trying to divert the discussion , I truly feel that the user Lesion has an agenda. I know more about Lasik and what happened to the individual then just about anyone. I do not know him, I know of him and his article is worthy of Wikipedia. If you are truly an impartial editor then you wouldn't put down that I have never contributed before but then you were the first to put Delete. Actually the author was never involved in litigation, by that I mean he never sued but was sued by the doctor who maimed him. Basically you, an editor have been biased from the start. I do find Fans of Buffy not worthy of any discussion, but that is fine. The fact that you are biased, let others attack anyone who had a positive opinion and point out who has never contributed to a conversation warranted an attack. Really anybody at 48 who is into comic books and Buffy who calls themselves an editor should be attacked. You started it by immediately taking sides on 9/17 by calling for deletion instead of clarification. You want an insult? Move out of your parents basement(Gene and Susan). I'm reporting you to Wikipedia for your obvious immediate bias against a article that could have been edited and not immediately flagged for deletion.Gibco65 (talk) 03:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I actually was just trying state my opinion on this subject and nothing else. - no, actually, that's not true. You started in with attack comments regarding other folks who were involved in the AFD with your very first message.
Then you put Gibco65 has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD while I'm being attacked by Lesion. No, actually, my placing of that template was at 23:40 October 1st; the only edit between that and your first message was Signbot signing your message for you. Lesion did not respond to your postings until after you had already responded to the template.
I know more about Lasik and what happened to the individual then just about anyone. - I'm sure you're proud of that.
If you are truly an impartial editor then you wouldn't put down that I have never contributed before - why wouldn't I? It is a standard part of Wikipedia discussions, particularly when there is claims of WP:CANVASSing.
I do find Fans of Buffy not worthy of any discussion - and yet, you repeatedly discuss me.
The fact that you are biased - you may be confusing an assumption with fact.
let others attack anyone who had a positive opinion - are you working under the assumption that I am in control of others?
Really anybody at 48 who is into comic books and Buffy who calls themselves an editor should be attacked. Really? You think that the variation of tastes in entertainment are such a problem in this world?
You started it by immediately taking sides on 9/17 by calling for deletion instead of clarification. - So, I couldn't already have an opinion on the AfD after having been involved in the article for more than a week? Is no one supposed to be able to cast a vote for deletion in a deletion discussion?
You want an insult? Move out of your parents basement(Gene and Susan). You may wish to watch your assumption of expertise; my parents do not have a basement.
I'm reporting you to Wikipedia for your obvious immediate bias against a article that could have been edited and not immediately flagged for deletion. - Please keep me apprised of what reporting method you use and how that proceeds. I think you'll find that voting "delete" on a deletion discussion, whether or not the article ends up getting deleted, is not a basis for reprimand... nor even is having a bias. You may also come to realize that the article was not immediately flagged for deletion, that it was around more than 8 days before someone filed it under Articles For Deletion, that it went through about 90 edits before that nomination, and that part of the AfD process is to determine whether the article can be saved by editing.

Now that you have gotten that out of your system, perhaps your editing will be more productive. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there will be no more edits. I have no time to argue with a group of people who refuse to grow up. I don't care if your parents have a basement or not, at 48 you are about 30 years late in moving out. I'm pretty sure I could answer your comments one by one but what is the sense? Buffy,comics,48,self important biased editor for Wikipedia, basically that explains the whole thing. I try and comment on something, you pick and choose what you will respond to pretty much like when you flagged me as newcomer to contributing must make you feel real important. A big shot who is cahoots with most of the other editors of a non important semi informative biased website. People like you are the reason people like me pay huge taxes and yet the government closes down. Do me a favor and get a job. Please contribute in a meaningful way to the economy. Sitting around playing on your parents computer is why this country is bankrupt. Go to McDonalds, apply for a job and deal with people face to face. You can do it. Just try that's all I ask. I will not argue when this was posted or that was posted, I just want you to get a job. You are 48, time to act like it.Gibco65 (talk) 05:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikipedia will survive your absence. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ask yourself this Gnat. Do I care? No, I have a life. A very rich and fulfilling life.Gibco65 (talk) 06:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a suggestion, if you want people to believe that about you, it might be more effective if you didn't spend your time making up thing about folks to demean them. It makes it look like you need to find an excuse to feel like you are better than they are. (By the way, how is that "reporting me to Wikipedia" going?) --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot, they said you're fired but then I explained it was all a huge misunderstanding so you're OK ;)Gibco65 (talk) 01:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nat I once again want to apologize for my comments. They were way out of line and that is not my way. I was not asked to post a comment on the article in question. I saw something on the internet, typed in the persons name, it took me to Wikipedia and saw the article was being considered for deletion. I read the article and being a newbie to all this, Emailed support at Wikipedia. They gave me detailed instructions as how to add my comments. I was not prompted by anyone to do this. I have been registered at Wikipedia since '07 or '08 and figured all right say something once. Let my opinion be heard. I made my comment based on the tone of some of the other comments. There really seemed to be a lynch mob mentality and after reading the article from what I knew of what happened I knew that it was mostly true. It needed to be cleaned up, its obvious Kantis does not know much about writing an article but I thought "this article needs to be cleaned up and not deleted." That was really my only intention, to put down my thoughts about this. Then 20 minutes later it was like Gibco65 has never contributed before. I was like here it goes, 20 minutes and it starts. A misunderstanding but that's what I thought. Then I look at your page and am like really? I attack you because I thought it was a small petty attack on me but now I realize you were doing what you were supposed to. I apologize one last time about that. Then Lesion chimes in and calls me a meat puppet. Now my BP is rising. All I wanted to do was voice my opinion and basically I feel I'm being attacked by two people. Then I write a retort that I saved before I went over it and it took 11 times to post. I feel I'm being toyed with. Trust me I'm not paranoid but the way the whole thing unfolded was a bit fishy to me last night. Now I know its just the way it is. I have no idea if Lesion is an editor per say who monitors pages but you are going to trust me on this, I was just try voice my opinion. It got stupid. After a long day and trying my best it turned into a five hour affair. I was mad and you caught the brunt of my nonsense. I'm trying to figure this stuff out, that's why I Emailed Wikipedia in the first place and it got way out of hand. Trust me I'm trying. I'm really not some jerk who just attacks people. I wanted to say something, said it and then it was like already? Yes I think that everyone should have a say. A little help would have been nice, I misunderstood and from now on if I have question I will search out the answer on Wikipedia. Remember though sometimes it isn't always on there like the edit conflict. That just made me aggravated. I'm trying and that's a start. You caught something that you shouldn't of. I was up for 21 hours at that point and had been busting my rump the last few days. To clarify something, I feel Faith was a much better Slayer then Buffy. Her insanity made the character. Joss Whedon is the man but I would take Faith any day over Buffy. Great unbalanced character. You see were not so different after all.Gibco65 (talk) 01:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'l respond to some parts of this on your page later (maybe tomorrow, things to do tonight) as some of the response will have some info that you may want to refer back to later... but for now, right here, so it will be part of the record with the conversation, let me say that your apology is appreciated and accepted. Thank you for that. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for accepting my apology. Finally one night I get to sleep on time!Gibco65 (talk) 02:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]