User talk:NatGertler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

FOR EARLIER POSTS see Archive 1, Archive 2

New Page Patrol survey[edit]


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[edit]

Christmas tree.svg 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[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
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![edit]

I hope you have a great holiday!

Quackers Talk Contributions

01:38, December 1, 2015 (UTC)

Peter Buschang Deletion[edit]

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[edit]

This may be a true sequel

Wikipedia Etiquette[edit]

Firstly, it was the formatting of my own comments I corrected on the Admin page because a bot thought I was boomeranging. All I did was put all my comments in order with the same number of tabs. And no, I did not use the page inappropriately. This was not a content dispute - I was being harassed on Wikipedia because of my professional life off Wikipedia. A user who supports skeptics like those who harassed my clients edited pages to remove mention to my professional endeavors from Wikipedia out of retaliation - they did not act in good faith their actions were harassment. That is why I went to Admin because they should not allow for other editors to make edits that are based on malice and then those editors rely on WP:COI to prevent the person they are harassing from reverting their edits --____ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathanbishop (talkcontribs) 01:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Responded on editor's page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


I did what you said in relation to that Canadian Professor, trying not to use his name even in the title of the claim and I was accused of WP:OUTING. Why was Guy allowed to accuse me of things that were not true and yet I am in the wrong for making allegations I know are true? --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

By saying it was not outing because he typed a name, it makes it pretty clear you were outing through implication. Add to that that you presented zero evidence in your case except for expressing your feelings made your post a clear candidate for deletion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
That's it I've had enough. Keep your encyclopedia to yourself - it doesn't deserve to be associated with me in any way whatsoever. I have no interest in any website that is so blatantly biased against me. Whatever I do is wrong and whatever others do is right!! --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
" it doesn't deserve to be associated with me in any way whatsoever". You will hear no disagreement with me on that. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
When you are blocking websites and pages associated with me, even if it is others that want to share them, be sure to block this one. --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't do any blocking of websites. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
One of the admins on the COI Noticeboard said they were going to. You might want to recommend that any site ending in "" be removed from Wikipedia. --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
That is, to my understanding, how such things are generally addressed; the entire domain name is black-flagged unless there is specific reason to segment it. I will ping the admin in question - @Dennis Brown: - so that he sees your comment. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
There should be no reason to segment it. If Crocels and I suddenly fall within WP:RS and WP:Notability respectively I will be asking Admin to remove any content about us. If I and Crocels are not up to Wikipedia's standards now, Wikipedia will never be up to our/my standards either. Why do I need any involvement with Wikipedia when I am editor-in-chief and sysop of Crocels's content platform? --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I have often told people that Wikipedia is a bad place to publicize yourself, that you'd be in better position having the top search result for your name be a page that you control rather than one where everyone else has not only as much right, but actually more right than you to edit the page about you. However, if you are expecting that you will be able to veto any inclusion of yourself, in my experience there has only been attention paid to that when there are matters of privacy involved. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit War notification[edit]

Please cease edit warring. At the very least, do not blank good edits. AManInWikipedia (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC) == Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion == Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Odd... I don't see any sort of discussion involving NatGertler at the edit-warring noticeboard. Shearonink (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Wait 5 minutes and you will. AManInWikipedia (talk) 19:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh, this is gonna be a laugh! --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Re: "Wait 5 minutes" - I see...well, usually one files the notice at the appropriate noticeboard first and then notifies other involved parties. Shearonink (talk) 20:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Hmmmmm. I don't see any edit-warring.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

reply to Dag Detter's photo[edit]

This picture was taken by his partner and it has been sent to me because it has no rights attached and therefore is safe to upload with his blessing. Please can you let me know if you're going to leave it alone, I can get him to email you if I must but he's quite happy for it to be used... Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollyeighteen (talkcontribs) 14:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, NatGertler. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

American Family Association[edit]

Hello Nat and good luck with this. I did try, but I've got somewhat discouraged by the non-discussing person who keeps editing it to their PoV, which is apparently OK because they know the facts. I also tried for RPP but I am not logged in and I just messed up my manual editing attempt ~97 times in a row, threw my teddy in the corner, and have now retired hurt. So, as I say, good luck and thanks (talk) 14:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I was just giving fair warning; one more round, and I'll be headed to RPP myself. Thanks for your efforts. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Sure, and thanks, and you're welcome (respectively!) (talk) 14:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The World Tomorrow Talk Page[edit]

I agree with you that the World Tomorrow are two different shows. I entered a new section explaining this titled "Trademark". Recently I was contacted by Gtaeicg, whose real name is Garner Ted Aukerman, a declared "Vexatious Litigator" by the supreme Court of Ohio - found here He contacted me via Facebook message and threatened a lawsuit, and said that that one was in the works with a lawyer in NYC. I was wondering if I could receive a statement from you if I'm taken to court. I'm not sure if I'm asking the right question here. I would like to know more on what you have been dealing with Gtaeicg. Is there a way I could contact you not on wikipedia? Thank youWwcg-archives (talk) 03:36, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

If you look to the column on the left of this talk page (as with many user talk pages), you will see a link that says "email this user". However, I will note that (to the best of my recollection) I have been dealing with Gtaeicg on nothing beyond what you see on the talk page, I have no other involvement with the show or shows called The World of Tomorrow. If what you want is for me to restate what I found on my trademark searches, you obviously have access to the same information, and I doubt that having my own statement would carry more weight than simply presenting the information from the USPTO website. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:59, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I understand. I've made records. Thank you for the help.Wwcg-archives (talk) 06:23, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 2 January[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Flying Bulls[edit]

Out of curiosity, did you do even a cursory web search of the topic before deciding to tag it for notability? The reason I added some references and the refimprove tag is because I did research to see if it should be a CSD. It is pretty obvious with even the most basic of searches that this is a clearly notable topic, and furthermore has met notability guidelines on the German Wikipedia. In fact, while the article does need more referencing, I think the 3 I added already are enough to satisfy notability requirements. Please review, and make changes as you see fit. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I did a web search and a news search, and found mainly Red Bull-run sites, regurgitated press releases, and passing mentions. All that puts the notability in question. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Really? So none of these convince you of credibility (all of these are non-Red Bull-run, not press releases, and more than passing mentions):
Flying Bulls Guinness World Record attemptFlying Bulls pilot killed in crashA seperate Flying Bulls accidentA German article about the Flying Bulls violating German airspaceAnother article from a credible source regarding the India crash
I think all of these along with all of the Red Bull-run sources (not necessarily bad sources even if they are Primary sources because Red Bull is typically considered reliable, and is of course quite notable on it's own, lending notability to the teams they own, especially when the founder of the company specifically started this team), the hundreds of press releases, and passing mentions surely must convince you that notability isn't really in question here. I won't remove the tag if you're still not convinced, but I disagree. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Those links are helpful, but many of the other things you mention are not. Hundreds of press releases do not establish notability, as notability is only established by third-party sources. The linking to Red Bull does not establish notabilty; see WP:NOTINHERITED. Passing mentions do little for notability. But the article has a more fundamental problem - as the team already has an article. It may not need one, it certainly doesn't need two. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I understand all of that, but all of those things are circumstantial evidence of notability, even if not acceptable notability per Wikipedia standards. That's all I was trying to point out. The fact that it already has an article certainly does mean this has a more fundamental problem. I obviously didn't realize that at the time. Cheers. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Just for my own later reference, I'm adding a note here that it turned out the the Flying Bulls and Flying Bulls Aerobatics Team turn out to be separate organizations, and with all of the above references being for the latter, they do not establish notability of the former. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks clarification[edit]

Hi. I thanked you for restoring the sourced material at the Catholic abuse page that for some reason the IP removes when he/she adds their data, not for removing their data itself which has some validity and is sourced. Maybe the IP isn't wording the addition well. Randy Kryn 15:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't remove their data. Look at my edit again; I kept both. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Then my mistake and apologies. Randy Kryn 16:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)