User talk:NatGertler

FOR EARLIER POSTS see Archive 1, Archive 2

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

Editing glitch

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.

Happy Holidays!

I hope you have a great holiday!

Quackers Talk Contributions

01:38, December 1, 2015 (UTC)

Peter Buschang Deletion

Dude you gotta give me 10 minutes to finish writing the article. I just hit submit and was going to add everything. You can't just go on a deleting spree without giving someone a chance. All the sourcing and links are done

About Home's sequel

This may be a true sequel

August 2017

Hello, I'm Me-123567-Me. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Universal Life Church have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Rather than revert to vandalism, put the correct number in. Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

False claim of vandalism rebutted here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LA event this Thursday

LA Meetup: September 7 edit-a-thon near DTLA

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

You have been invited to a meetup and edit-a-thon at the LA84 Foundation in Jefferson Park (near DTLA) on Thursday, September 7, 2017 from 5:45 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.! This event aims to improve coverage of female Olympians and Paralympians (some of whom will be attending!). There will be a deejay and food/drinks, and kids are welcome.

I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Join our Facebook group, follow our Twitter account, and like our Facebook page!! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

Public wealth of cities

Noticed that you put a PROD on Public wealth of cities. I fully agree with this (I requested a speedy delete the last time the article was created), but think that sending the article an official Afd would be wise as the page has been recreated and PRODs are easy to contest. I would do this myself but you seem to be more familiar with the situation and I don't want to botch an argument. Cheers.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with you in principle, at the moment my life is too full of actual paying work to spend the proper time doing a full proper BEFORE. So I'm taking the easy PROD, rather than tackling the AFD as well as addressing the copyvio concerns. Should that fail, I will take care of the AFD. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zoë Quinn's PGPs

Hi NatGertler,

In the last several months, you've participated in a discussion on Talk:Zoë Quinn about which preferred gender pronouns to use in the article. So I thought I'd give you a heads up that I'm starting a WP:RFC to hopefully resolve this issue! You can find the relevant discussion here.

Regards. --Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 18:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Destructive Comments: Withdrawing from Wikipedia

@NatGertler:

I don't know what's going on here. You seem to prey on my contributions and suggest them for speedy deletions. No matter what I do to improve them or which source I deliver. Admittedly I am new to Wikipedia and truly believed that I could contribute to this project. But this experience leaves me truly disillusioned. It appears to me as if some people want to turn (or keep?) Wikipedia into some sort tightly-knit old boys network would decide over everything, maybe not so different to the editorial board of the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

It seems to me that some people want to shut me down for whatever reason: copyright infringement - unfounded, promotion - unfounded, advertising - unfounded and so on. Well, unfortunately these people have succeeded: I will no longer contribute anything to Wikipedia after this entirely destructive experience.

I believe that this is exactly NOT what Jimmy Wales had in mind when he created Wikipedia. But be it as it may, I'll keep on recommending the sources I deem of high value to my family, friends and fellow students. At least they don't accuse me of promotion or of providing a "neologism that has not gained much traction" when they suddenly understand a term that is new to them.

Enjoy editing & fare well,

Rachel Tan

Rachel:

The only articles of yours that I marked for "Speedy deletion" were ones that were made up almost completely of copyright violations. Those are supposed to be speedily deleted, to protect the rights of the copyright holder as well as to help protect those who make use of Wikipedia's materials from unintentionally violating the rights of others. After you changed Wealth Net, and some other editor had gone through and cleaned your copyright violations out of the history of that page, I did my research to see if this was actually a term that carried weight, and found that there wasn't much there. Wikipedia is not intended to be a storehouse for everything. I did put that one up for deletion, but not "speedy", and indeed it was a deletion process that you could have ended with a single edit.

That you continue to deny that your additions were copyright violations suggests that you have not been paying attention to what has been said to you, and that you show little interest in co-operating with others in this project. Wikipedia has a large set of rules, of guidelines, and of suggestions that have been formed and worked with by people who have donated a large amount of time for this project. You certainly cannot be expected to know all of them or even much of them coming in, but you will find that if you listen to experienced editors when they give you advice or point you to guidelines, you are apt to end up doing more useful work here then when you insist that however it is you picture Wikipedia working must be the way that it works. Are you going to make mistakes? Yes, every new editor does - and every experienced editor you deal with was a new editor once.

My recommendation (not that I expect that is of much value to you) is that you take a break from Wikipedia, but do come back, bring your energy but perhaps fewer assumptions. Try finding an article that is of interest, and see if you can improve it in small ways at first - is there dated data there? Are there things that are poorly phrased? Work with what we have at first and build outward; your previous editing history has come across to more than one person as though you started with a specific source and tried to find various places to stick it in. Starting with new articles can be tempting but can be problematic; many (perhaps most) new articles get deleted for any of a number of reasons, and I understand that that can be frustrating. Smaller edits can be helpful in your learning the way things work around here, and that can make your larger efforts more effective.

And if that sounds like too much effort, I understand. There is a fine life to be had without contributing to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy your life whichever path you take. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mind if I join this discussion -- just wanted to echo Nat's comments, and add that almost all of us contributors at Wikipedia have gone through a similar junction in which we try to contribute, but we find it's more difficult than it looks. There's a learning curve here in Wikipedia, learning the rules and habits, and this takes time to acquire, but after you get the gist, you'll find that you can contribute effectively with minimal fuss. It involves listening to other contributors, which is a skill that comes with time.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RachelTan left a similar message on multiple talk pages of editors whom she feels persecuted her, and has apparently left Wikipedia. In my view, obstinate resistance to learning Wikipedia policies and guidelines when they are pointed out, will usually have this result. And that's fine, if the primary purpose of an editor is (quoting her above) to "keep on recommending the sources I deem of high value" by repeatedly adding links to someones personal web site. If the source is reliable, there are better ways to approach adding it, but RachelTan seemed to pay attention only to the fact that she was getting reverted, and not trying to learn from it. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand assuming that the flaws in her activities were central to her desire to edit, but it costs me nothing to allow for the possibility that her intents are good and the energy that went into her misfocused efforts might be there to be redirected to more useful ones. And I think that your focus on the self-published nature of the web page she pointed to may be overdone, as what she really wanted to point to was the PDF, which at least appears to be simply an electronic edition of something claimed to be published by School of Management Fribourg. If that's the publisher, the work could be cited reasonably as a reference even without a link, and either of the locations where the PDF has been found could be listed as a location for reading the text (it's not pointing to a copyright violation, as the hosting both at the .biz site and at researchgate would seem to fall within the book's copyright permissions.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for explaining editing policies and how-to information so kindly and clearly. Annecoldiron (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deprod: Wealth Tech

Hello, I deprodded Wealth Tech on the grounds that a comment left on the talk page after the article was tagged for deletion indicates that deletion is not uncontroversial. I did this before I saw your discussion above with the article creator. If you wish to pursue deletion please feel free to take to AFD. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 00:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The World Tomorrow (radio and television)

Hi,

Glad to meet you.

I noticed your reversion of my edit on this page. I'm on the Wikipedia Typo Team and one of my current projects is to eliminate duplications of the word 'the'. Some are simple duplications, others are because they are on both sides of a wikilink and one goes unnoticed when reading. Once in a while, they're legitimate, but I don't believe this is one of those instances.

It's a myth that when the definite article 'the' precedes a noun or name that starts with 'the', it should be repeated. Only one 'the' is proper use. For instance, it's not proper to say (or write) that I'm going to play the The Legend of Zelda video game.

Spoken English generally allows much more leeway than written English, but even to say that there were varied translations of the The World Tomorrow name is extremely awkward - even grating. (Try saying it out loud.) If you think it's proper to use 'the' twice, may I suggest recasting the sentence so that they're not consecutive?

I'm aware that you're a writer and appreciate your experience, but I believe that if this was submitted to an editor, it would be changed. Please let me know if you want me to recast the sentence, or you want to.

Regards,

Ira

Ira Leviton (talk) 03:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ira,

I appreciate all the time and effort you're putting into cleaning up Wikipedia. If you feel that that's awkward, feel free to rephrase, just not in the way that you did.

When you tell me that it's a myth that the two sequential thes are correct, I respond with an admittedly problematic "sez who?" This is a topic that most style guides do not address. And no, I don't find it extremely awkward when spoken, but then I would instinctively pronounce the two differently ("thee thuh world tomorrow"). I don't find the removal at all logical; the two uses of the word serve different purposes and neither is removable. If I say "I purchased an An Affair to Remember poster and put it up next to the The Babe poster that was already there," I have done nothing wrong; to drop one of the thes changes it from my putting up a poster for a film about Babe Ruth to putting up a poster for a film about a talking pig. (Admittedly, some of the stories about Mr. Ruth suggest that there wasn't that much difference.)

Have a fine weekend! --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

ANI on Linda Perry‎ and Sara Gilbert Jim1138 (talk) 01:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Beyond Ex-Gay for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Beyond Ex-Gay is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond Ex-Gay until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mathglot (talk) 01:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nat, we had an edit conflict; by the time your prod was up there, I had already created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond Ex-Gay, and so rather than cancel that (is that even possible?) or just let it hang twisting slowly in the wind, I just went ahead and replaced the prod notice with the Afd notice. Hope that's okay. Mathglot (talk) 01:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This probably would've been a good thing to do with Prod - less fuss, and there's no sign that anyone is actually interested in keeping the article there. But the AfD is fine. (You may want to try using Twinkle, which can set up AFDs quickly and automatically for you.) ---Nat Gertler (talk) 01:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it really is a hassle doing it manually. I'll have to try it, thanks. I did think of trying Prod, but the reason I didn't, is every time I have tried that, the creator or major contributor always deletes it, so I didn't see the point. Mathglot (talk) 06:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jahnavi Kapoor

Hey there, why was you added deletion tag on Jahnavi Kapoor. The page have many reliable sources of Indian Newspapers websites like India.com, India Today, Indian Express. If you think that add more sources, I can add in It. Please consider to remove the deletion tag. Thanks HINDWIKI • CHAT 11:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I prodded it because our guidelines say that actors should have multiple notable rolls to get their own article, and this subject's debut film has not yet come out. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aurora Lighting

Hi, what I need to remove the notability note? I created pages before and I didn't receive this message. Also, last night another user removed many links. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Can.kilic1981 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

COI Noticeboard Process

Regarding [[1]], I'm not sure what additional I can provide beyond, what I believe, is a clear WP:COI in regards to Mr.hmm with PfSense and OPNSense since the account was created 7 months after the initial release of OPNSense. Every edit and comment has been for one and opposed to the other, while constantly attacking other editors. If you have the responsibility of passing judgement, did you read his contributions and if there is something that I failed to do to demonstrate his actions, I would like to know how to improve it. I thought that I was posting in the correct place to have him considered for COI, yet you dismissed my claim simply based on his comments of the content being notable, yet again. I have added 12 citations to the Draft:OPNSense page to satisfy the notability, can we please address the issue at hand, that Mr.hmm has a Conflict of Interest and is not-neutral in his actions. His actions seem to fall into various behavioral categories, including WP:Disruptive Editing, WP:Gaming_the_system, WP:POINT, and likely others. I'm simply asking how I can get a more thorough review of this user's behavior, or if such a mechanism exists. ComputerRick (talk) 11:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not dismiss your claim, I addressed a single aspect of it which was based in problematic logic. I do not have some special COI-board powers. As to how to improve it, you muddied the waters of your concern over the one editor by listing other editors on your complaint; it made it look like you were declaring this a COI cabal, which falls apart on quicker examination. In any case, you should be bringing your consideration and arguments to the conflict of interest noticeboard where you started the discussion, and not to the personal talk page of just another editor, where it will achieve little if anything. The editor you are accusing does seem to be at least a single-purpose account which can indeed be an indication (but not proof) of a conflict of interest. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With the upmost respect to you, I don't think it's appropriate to view my account as a single-purpose account just because one of many sock accounts try to get me removed. The user ComputerRick appears and attacks me (not to mention calls me a fascist several times) right after OPNsense draft is rejected by other editors. All of these socks appear almost one after another, it's beyond obvious that they're SPA's. And all of them keep pushing the same propaganda draft for non-notable software. I literally battle their sock accounts all the time, just check my talk page and talk page history.--Mr.hmm (talk) 02:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but I don't view your account as a likely SPA because someone is trying to get you removed. I've seen many people targeted for removal (myself included) and many were not SPAs (myself included.) I view your account as a likely SPA because of the narrow band of articles you've edited some consistent purpose showing in what of those edits I've checked. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because I stop vandalism and self-promotion? That's a pretty weak argument for SPA. I would with agree you if I was actually inserting content and not removing blatant promotion against the rules, instead my edits are related to FreeBSD and preventing vandalism (as described on my user page). Are you saying I should consider areas other than FreeBSD?--Mr.hmm (talk) 11:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, because I'm not saying that you shouldn't be an SPA. Simply being an SPA is not inherently a problem. Some SPAs do a lot of good, and some are celebrated for their efforts. (Others, not so much.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree about SPA matter but I respect your opinion as you're much more experienced editor. It's nice to have a pleasant chat for a change. Cheers!--Mr.hmm (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NatGertler, You are correct. This is my first foray into contesting or complaining of any type of behavior and I was wrong to include the other two. The reason I've come at this so focused is because of the consistent attacks that Mr.hmm makes against anyone trying to include something he doesn't agree with. He's attacked nearly 20 users as socks because he's thinks we have an agenda. I make a mistake and post 2 editors and I get lambasted, while Mr.hmm is not addressed at all? He attacks and I make a mistake of etiquette, the responses for him & I do not seem to fit the crimes. Thank you for being reasonable and honest. ComputerRick (talk) 06:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]