User talk:NatGertler/Archive 1

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)

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)

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))

---

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Bellerephon1 (talk) 03:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)I'm new to this so forgive me if I make some mistakes. I just wanted to point out that the Ancient history information on the gay marriage page is completely wrong. I might not have submitted my attempted corrections in the right way, but my point is valid. The Romans did not permit gay marriage. The funny thing is that the evidence presented in the article actually supports my point of view that gay marriage did not exist. If anyone actually took the time to read the ancient evidence cited this would be clear. For example, Cicero's second Philipic is cited and the author claims that a gay marriage is described therein. This is clearly not true. Here is the citation from the article, ^ Cicero Philippic 2.18.45 See old translation at: http://old.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0021&layout=&loc=2.18.45 , and here is the actual translation of that passage, You assumed the manly gown, which you soon made a womanly one: at first a public prostitute, with a regular price for your wickedness, and that not a low one. But very soon Curio stepped in, who carried you off from your public trade, and, as if he had bestowed a matron's robe upon you, settled you in a steady and durable wedlock

The second Philipic was a speech that Cicero wrote attacking Antonius, I did not footnote this fact because it is regarded as common knowledge. Please notice that in the quote Cicero writes that Curio "carried you off" and "bestowed a matron's robe upon you". A matron was a married woman. In this quote Cicero was comparing Antonius to a woman, a vicious insult among the ancient Romans were rather misogynist. Cicero is not saying Antonius married Curio's son, he is saying that Curio's son made Antoinus his girl friend! A careful reading of the evidence makes this clear.

The same can be said for the references to Juvenal. Juvenal does not claim to have attended a gay marriage as is suggested. Juvenal's work is fiction. Satire to be precise. Furthermore, the wording makes it clear that the ceremony the character is going to attend is being held secretly and he hopes that one day such things will be done openly. It must also be noted that Juvenal was highly critical of men who had sex with other men.

Martial's poems also must not be used as evidence for gay marriage. Just as with Cicero, Martial is accusing his target of being a wife, i.e. a woman, and not a real man. He is not describing actual, legal marriages.

Let me be clear, the Romans did not outlaw same sex relationships. On the contrary they were common. Roman law, however, did not grant any legal status to these relationships. Personally, I have little interest in the current debate over gay marriage. I think that we should be accurate in our discussions, however.

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)

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))

'Teabagging'

FYI Tea Party Protest header 'Teabagging' edited to 'Origins'. No consensus.--Happysomeone (talk) 03:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For tirelessly removing POV text. Dr.enh (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

NOM

Hi, two requests: (1) I hope you'll continue to come discuss how I should handle the opening paragraph of the NOM article, which I think contains an objective error right now. (I am simultaneously pursuing getting NOM to publicly mention their dispute of the label and learning from the NYT reporter what the source was for the label (I doubt there was a source), but wonder what else to do in the meantime.) (2) I wondered if you could visit the talk page and give me constructive criticism on how I am handling that situation. I am trying to assume good faith, but Outerlimits has misrepresented me a couple of times and is not assuming good faith in the discussion. I mentioned this on the NOM talk page and now wonder if I should have asked him to be more polite on his talk page, instead of the NOM talk page. On the other hand, since he misrepresented me on the NOM talk page, I feel like it should be part of the same discussion.

Any advice you have on how to handle this (or things I need to correct, or the proper protocol for correcting things without editing my own comments inappropriately) would be helpful to me; I'm obviously inexperienced at these sort of disagreements on Wiki, usually I just correct minor vandalisms. I haven't had to deal with anyone uncivil or who didn't grasp the NPOV meta goal. It would also help to have a better editor who disagrees with me participating in the substantive discussion of the article whenever you are able to get back to it. Thank you. Teaforthetillerman (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the reply; feel better!Teaforthetillerman (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For all the input; very helpful. I'm aware that original research won't be cite-able, but it'll help me establish for myself that the article's objectively incorrect; then I can pursue a correction from the paper. Glad you're feeling better! Teaforthetillerman (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage

Thank you for your kind words, NatGertler. However, since the issue is controversial, even contentious maybe, and that would be the first 3RR report I have done, I must regretfully defer to you or someone else that has more experience in these matters. Thatguyflint ^{Talk to me!} 21:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way

Did I ever tell you how much I enjoyed The Factor? DS (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected.

Thank you for your correction. I should have noted it was moved, not pulled.J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For the formatting fixes. Can you tell me what I got wrong on the formatting there? I had trouble telling from the diffs. Thanks, sorry for the hassle. Teaforthetillerman (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. Teaforthetillerman (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if I hurt your feelings, but

Claiming that Latter-day Saints use small 's' "saints" when they do not and have not for over a century suggested to me that you are making assumptions about a topic outside of your expertise. That's all. Cool Hand Luke 18:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions

On January 9, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Same-sex marriage under United States tribal jurisdictions, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Shocker Toys Wiki Article

I agree that a nuetral position should try and be maintained and that all of us are editors within the Wiki system. However if you noticed the page had slowed to a nice medium before the 3 positive awards were added. After that ShockerHelp undid your changes and Bilby's changes to skew the article again. This was attempted the 1st time a positive award was placed in the article. All I am saying here is that the proof is in the pudding. When a positive change happens ShockerHelp or other non-members of Wiki jump on the article to shoot the change down. If it is a negitive change it is left untouched. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.237.167 (talk) 21:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any of my changes undone. That article has had, and continues to have, aggressive editors on both sides. - Nat Gertler (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

SSM

Is there anything worth keeping or should it just be removed per WP:Forum? CTJF83 chat 06:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any of it needs to be deleted; in his own way (he's certainly not speaking Wikipedia Editspeak) he's pretty much expressing a concern that the article is not WP:NPOV and that there are certain things which need inclusion in the aritcle, and that sort of thing is legitimate to raise on a talk page. Don't get me wrong, his article edits have been inappropriate and POV, but talk pages are the appropriate place to raise the concerns he wants to raise there... and if there's any hope of having him be a useful editor in the long term, it will come from recognizing that he has a right to his concerns, even if we don't share them. So we're better off addressing his comments at this point than deleting them. - Nat Gertler (talk) 07:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears neutral to me, doesn't it look good to you? Like you told him, we have a whole section related to religion. CTJF83 chat 19:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying he's right; he isn't. But it is indeed appropriate for him to raise his concerns on the talk page, as its there for discussing the editing of the article. It would be proper to delete talk page comments if they're not about the editing of the article; it is not appropriate to delete them just because their stance about the article is not one we agree with. - Nat Gertler (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Same Sex Marriage

Consensus was reached. I am reverting your edit. Please discuss the edit in the talk page if you disagree.Jstanierm (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Marriage

Nat, there is a sub section in this very article that discusses same-sex marriage. We have to report reality and state that in truth marriage is almost always between a man and a woman. If we had to report all exceptions for all articles, every lede sentence would be incredibly boring and uninformative. For example, the same-sex marriage lede should not have the number "two" in it if we wanted to include all forms.66madewoqa (talk) 20:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Nat, you, Historyguy1965 and Hardyplants are almost the only people who actually read and participate in the discussion page. If we got more involvement that would be fine, but with just a small number of readers like you, sharing your viewpoint, we can't have an impartial and constructive debate.66madewoqa (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Glenmere Mansion

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

A report can be found here [[2]]Jstanierm (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

NatGertler, thanks for your efforts on this article. See the result of the 3RR case. If you have the patience to do so, it would be good if you would make a report explaining the COI issues about Glenmere mansion at the WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. It seems that at least two and possibly three of the recent editors may have a COI, if you count the IP. EdJohnston (talk) 06:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the support and effort. I have put the COI up on the Noticeboard, at your suggestion. Only reported two including the IP; frankly, don't have time at the moment to dive into the full history to see if there's a third deserving. - Nat Gertler (talk) 08:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

An editor named Strausmedia has restored fluff including the 'meticulous restoration' which may never have occurred and the claim about Frog's End. The article has links to strausnews.com. One of his edits is here. EdJohnston (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I wrote him up... and then retracted it, realizing that 1) he was not the first to introduce strausnews source into the article, so it was not an aggressive infringement; 2) I was going to have to raise his WP:ORGNAME violation with him, so I didn't want to make a newby feel squished; 3) there is reasons to suspect that that user is actually a user already named in the COI (based on the style of edits, the style of comments, and the cessation of the efforts of one SPA account before the commencement of another.) - Nat Gertler (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It also looks like someone left in a huff when he couldn't get you blocked... I've got Glenmere mansion on my watchlist now as well, so we'll see what happens... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ha! I had not seen that. Thanks for letting me know. May all who wish to do you harm similarly lack competence in doing so. (Really, you gotta feel for the guy, in terms of the contrast of what he thought he would achieve and what he did...) - Nat Gertler (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Trillion's Revenge

I have a binder with friend that has proof the film exists, it is just not known that well, not being in thearters or movie rental places--A-spices (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

F U, TRILLION'S REVENGE IS AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBomb.888 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

TheBomb.888 is on the MONEY!!!!!!!!!. I will make the Trillion's Revenge article and build the Trillion's Revenge empire/nation.--A-spices (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Username Policy

So what do we do, just start new accounts with new everything, and what happens with the merged page?--TheBomb&A-spice (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You can just leave the merged page marked "retired" as you did - I suspect that won't be a problem. I have taken the forwarding off of The Bomb's page, and it looks like you took it off the A-spice page. You may want to add a note to the merged page noting that you stopped the joint account when you realized it was in violation of policy. And thank you for taking care of that! --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, NatGertler. You have new messages at Glenfarclas's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Question

Did I miss something: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stuathain&curid=26367990&diff=346817689&oldid=346817686 ?--Supertouch (talk) 04:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Please comment and give your opinion as an active editor of homosexuality-related articles on English Wikipedia, thank you very much

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Contradicting_informations_between_English_and_Czech_Wikipedia.3B_Czech_Wikipedia_presents_propaganda_for_a_year_and_nobody_care_of_it_there --Destinero (talk) 10:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Question Re: External Links and Spam

I had posted an external link on a Crimson Skies wiki page, thinking that it was not spam. You must understand I'm not really familiar with wiki rules but, considering that external link number 3 on this page goes to a site where you can supposidly "buy miniatures" (I went there and found nothing on Crimson Skies) which means its an advertising link placed there to make money. Our link placed under that was a place to play free, much like the MSN Gaming Zone was. So if my link isn't allowed but this one is... then I am most confused. I also stated that if what I did was wrong to please contact me and let me know HOW to do it right. If the purpose of a WIKI is to supply information, and what I did costs people nothing... then I am really lost. I'm not trying to be arrogant, I am trying to understand how to communicate to people who do use the wiki, where they can go to still have the same free fun they did before. Thanks for the understanding, hopefully someone will point me in the right direction. (ReverbDev (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC))

Thanks for responding in my talk page. I apologize if this isn't the right place to respond, I have NO idea how wiki pages are used to communicate to people posting in talk sections. I find it very confusing... With that said, I am still curious why the link to the Miniatures site is allowed, and for that matter even allowed to remain, when the content for it has been removed. The miniatures had nothing to do with the game, just as much so as finding a place to play online (seems to) have nothing to do with the game. And again, with all due respect, I have to ask the community at large, if the purpose of a wiki is to supply information on a topic such as a game, why is it SO bad to let people know where they can still play the game. I can certainly understand if someone had to pay to get that service, and be upset. We aren't charging any fees to let people do what they do. As well, this has never been a 'competition' to me, from the aspect of "here is our site, its the only place to play"... I think anyone who DOES this type of thing should be allowed to provide those same links as I wish to. Apparently there is "no way" that folks like myself have the opportunity to do something like this? But.. a place to buy miniatures can... (ReverbDev (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC))

NCCU

Yes. I simply made a stupid mistake. Pleas help me delete User NCCU page. Thanks! Tsungyenlee (converse) 07:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Marriage

Hello, Nat. You reverted out my insertion of Dr. Alford's (Harvard Law School) article on Chinese marriage in the Marriage article as being too specific. Hmm. Read it? Anyway, it's arguable, but we'll go with your point of view. Best wishes and thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Nat. Thanks for your reply. No "carpet bombing" had been intended, per se. Usually when I read something closely and see its application to many articles, I carefully add it. In this case your point was made, so we're in general agreement. I would add one caveat. Some of what Dr. Alford writes is more generally applicable should one care to choose to read the entire scholarly paper carefully. I see you've removed it from the Flash marriage article because you say it doesn't have the phrase "flash marriage" literally in Alford's article. Well, the idea of freedom in marriage is relevant to that -- which is something spot on that Dr. Alford addresses. So there is relevance. Especially if one reads all 34 pages of Alford's paper. One is bereft of what to do next short of editing jousts, which is to be avoided except in serious cases in WP land. Best wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk)

Thanks for your suggestions but I've been around Wikipedia editing for over five years now, and many thousands of edits on articles (not on talk pages) in, and know these things. Sometimes talk pages on articles lay fallow in content because no one cares and so the upper hand is artificially achieved. It depends on article visibility and traffic. Sp talk pages don't always elicit the requisite discussion in a timely manner. I usually get someone else involved in such rare cases, someone I trust, to see it through another set of eyes with balance. Happily, in the 8000 or so articles and five years, I've had very very few reversions done so it's a rare moment. So let's leave it all now as this matter has reached its logical conclusion. Cheers. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 02:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Ken Cage

Hi! Thanks a lot, Mr. comic book writer-senior wiki editor-smarti pants for the following; thanks for deleting my article Ken Cage without even contacting me, without an AfD (I think significant coverage in Wall Street Journal warrants at least and afd for community opinion..). Thank you also for accusing me on talk pages of the company for being a COI editor. Look at my history, shmoe, and you will note that when I see something newsworthy I make an article. This, Ken Cage thing is ridiculous, I see now, but I did not know this. You should have contacted me, I would have helped. So, here is what you have done; accused me wrongfully of something I am not, speedy deleted or merged my article to another on your own accord, without community input. Wikipedia is not your own, do not act that way, communicate, cooperate- do not do rude stuff on your own accord. Thanks for nothing. Jerk. I should try and have you blocked for such conduct. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Original poster stricken, mis-understanding, apology extended. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

And accepted! Thanks! --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi Nat, thanks for your previous help. I was wondering how I add userbox and projects to my user page.--DCX (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Hi again Nat, how would it be possible to make changes to Maggie Gallagher's Bio? it seems to be locked down.--DCX (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Hello, NatGertler. You have new messages at WildHorsesPulled's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Proposed deletion of Lauren Ashley

The article Lauren Ashley has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Lauren Ashley hasn't actually one a pageant, Miss Beverly Hills is a claimed title. This is a BLP1E for one controversial interview.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AniMate 00:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI

I know you posted on BLP/N on the "Hate Speech" issue. Just FYI it's also been brought up on father's talk page. For whatever that's worth.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up! --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Letters to the editor in StJS

That hardly seems like a reliable source as all it is an unsubstantiated claim by the rector who would be viewed as POV'ed to the situation. Granted it was published in the Times, but their standard boilerplate is that they are not responsible for the overall context. What do you think since you dismissed my original citation which had more weight than this one? --Morenooso (talk) 06:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It is an appropriate source for stating that the rector made that claim (which is why I changed it from "noted", which the previous editor had, to "stated"). It would not be appropriate for us to put the claim in the article in bare fashion. Times is a reliable source for this, in that they would have verified that the letter had indeed come from the rector. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

They would have verified it if it was controversial in nature and not in line with what they would expect from the rector. I know this because I used to date a public affairs gal from the local paper. As per their boilerplate, letters are selected based upon how relevant they are. These days most newspaper seem to be going down the Jerry Springer lane - egging people on IMHO. Letters to the editors usually do not undergo a fact check unless again they are controversial or out of line. If those two situations existed, they would not run the letter. In the StJS case, normally it is good publishing policy to air a letter from the concerned parties as it shows that the paper has NPOV and can present both sides of the argument. Whether they choose to follow up on a letter with a subsequent article is another matter. I still question this citation as a reliable source. --Morenooso (talk) 07:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how large your local paper is; my experience with larger papers is that they verify the author to at least a basic degree (believe me, the items I was writing about are not nearly as contentious as the matter at hand here, nor am I in a position akin to the rector's.) And in a situation like this, there would certainly be a correction if the rector claimed the letter wasn't his, and no such correction appears. As such, that the rector made the statement seems to me quite adequately sourced, even if the claims he makes are not. However, if you would like to slightly reword it to make it even clearer that the rector is making claims that are not otherwise in evidence (replacing stated with claimed or asserted), I would not have an objection.

I think the claim, even if treated as true, is not much of a claim; the count of accused priests has an invisible "yet" hanging over it, as more recent graduates would have had less time to have accusers come forward than those from previous classes. And I think the reference is good to have in there for something it -doesn't- include; the letter is essentially a "yes, but" note rather than a "no" note, as it doesn't deny anything in the Times article and thus to some degree blunts any objection that it's just the Times reporters say-so. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

They are fairly large and called the McClatchy News Service and quoted fairly often by other news services. Saw your edit summary about if it wasn't him, the paper would've corrected. I covered that (cf. above) and as per what is the norm, most news services wouldn't run it unless as part of a piece to expose a faker. Unfortunately, my computer dumped last night and I lost the article that I mentioned on the talkpage that would have discredited other graduates. As per my post on the article talkpage, I am not interested in fanning the flames as some of these graduates could be a prince of the church (also as per my article talkpage post). There are more than two (as per the rector's claim) accused as you if do a search on StJS and molestation, you will find more stories of former priests/students coming forward to saying instructors molested them. In essence, his claim waters your original reliably sourced edit that backed the 10 percent claim (65/625).

Since I am not getting anywhere with you, I will drop this but with my belief the same that this is not a reliable source. This bishop, George Patrick Ziemann who was a graduate (See Ziemann. Like Cardinal Mahony, Ziemann caught a lot of heat because he covered up and resigned as per what is written on his article. Look at the L.A. pastoral region's auxiliary bishops' articles. Ditto. I grew up in L.A.

BTW, although nothing is private on Wikipedia, I will say to you if anyone thinks I am POV on this issue, take a look at Ziemann's edit history. I wonder who improved the article? Me. I do this with a lot of California figures as I am a member of the CA Wikiproject. I have no dog in this issue other than I really detest fly-by deletions. --Morenooso (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Not verifying the sender ahead of time is very different than not running a correction when a notable person tells you you that the letter you ran by him was not by him; that would be the height of editorial malfeasance. The LATimes corrects far more minor errors than that (today, they're correcting the type of animals that cheetahs dine on). As for "you will find more stories of former priests/students coming forward to saying instructors molested them", I don't see how that contradicts the number asserted, as it describes graduates accused of molestation, not instructors so accused (which is not to say that accusations against instructors should not be covered, if there's a verified body of them). If you have any concerns about my POV, please let me know and I shall try to address them. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

We're getting nowhere. Best to drop it. Peace out. --Morenooso (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

hi Nat - can you look at the article for Chai Feldblum when you have a chance?

it is a disaster. I don't mind researching and reworking it, but it seems like it should be scrapped and started again. Also - it should be under an LGBT Project, no?--DCX (talk) 11:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Doug: I've looked at it, and you'll have to help me see it through your eyes. Perhaps it's due to my unfamiliarity with the subject, but it looks to me like a basically solid article - sure, lots of little clean-ups to be done around the edges, some honorifics to be removed here, some merging sentences into paragraphs there, and deserving a little more or less emphasis on one thing or another, but it looks largely structurally sound to build on. It looks well-sourced, there's a sizable section on background, she certainly now qualifies as a public figure and thus criticism of her is fair game. So if there's a problem here that requires scrapping, you're going to have to make it clearer to me, because I'm missing it.

And while I'm saying that -- you're going to have to make it clearer to the other editors of the page. Your entry on the Talk:Chai Feldblum page, while heartfelt, isn't likely to have much effect, particularly the effect that you want it to have. It doesn't make clear what the problems with the article is; it comes across primarily as an insult to the folks who have been editing the article, who are the very folks that you want to convince of something. It can take a little while getting used to, but talk page entries are apt to have a lot more effect if they focus on editing goals and less on emotional reaction. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Just realized I didn't answer your second question, to which my answer is: I dunno. I'm not a participant in projects - it seems a likely candidate to me, but I'm not experienced enough in the project realm to know what their concerns would be. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Nat-

Chai Feldblum was recently appointed by Obama to head the EEOC. Recently she has been the target of right wing media and blog smear campaigns and several items in the article play into those conspiracy theories and don't present a clear or balanced . I shouldn't have written what I did in the Talk section...I'll watch it in future.--DCX (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC) --DCX (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You may want to either delete your comment, or (better yet) strike it through and leave an apology. It's a step of appearing reasonable, which should help you with any future efforts in working with the editors there. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I deleted the comments as soon as I read your message this afternoon.--DCX (talk) 06:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Template and image being placed on many religious articles

An editor is placing a template on several articles you follow. It is [[Catholic sex abuse cases]]. I have removed it from Roger Mahony's article because it places an image that is not related to him. This template probably needs a redirect but I don't know how to do that. Do you know to make one (in case this editor re-edits the article)?. Ideally it should put a line like the one that goes to another article (that template page) underneath this section: Roger_Mahony#Sexual_abuse_cases?

Well, actually I don't think that template had been added to articles I actually follow (watch). However, I have gone over and taken a look at it. The template is trying to be a navbox, and I'm not sure it's totally illegitimate to have such a navbox. The image, however, is inappropriate. I've joined in on the criticism of it over at the template's talk page, and it looks like a clear consensus is forming against it. That should be gone soon, I expect. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I reverted it out of two he put it in. He's tagging articles with it. The image and box really don't belong on individual articles. It either should be a "see also" or "see main article for church scandals" or whatever the template is called. On one article I follow where I first saw it, I thought it was neat someone had put an image of the order brother on it. But when I learned what it was, I reverted it. I did the same for Mahony's article which I know you are on. You can either look at its history or my contribs to see that I reverted its insertion. As I drove home from brunch today, I thought that putting that image/template on an article is like Staples Center's infobox on the Lakers' article. Sure, it may apply but it doesn't belong there. It should a wikilink, see also or see main article link from the article. Thanks, --Morenooso (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The image is currently gone from the template; I edited it out on fairly clear consensus. I don't have strong convictions on where it may or may not belong. Really, this looks like a single editor with an announced viewpoint trying to get this in place, and b the very method he's doing so, he's attracting the attention likely to dissolve it. -Nat Gertler (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. --Morenooso (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

He just re-linked the empty box at Mahony's article. I changed it to a Main nav. --Morenooso (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark C Price sounds like the template creator in many ways IMHO. They make similar points. I wonder if he is one and the same? --Morenooso (talk) 05:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

My best guess would be no, as Price stays terser. But I've been wrong before. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I've seen sockpuppets change their style or throw it off slightly in order to escape detection. --Morenooso (talk) 05:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

An editor we know just deleted material at Junípero Serra. ----moreno oso (talk) 21:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yo!

Hey Nat;

Do you want to exchange email addresses or skype or messenger?

Doug--DCX (talk) 03:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion is requested

Hi Nat!

I was wondering if you have time can you weigh in on this topic. I know you are fair and I appreciate your opinion, what ever it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_12#Category:LGBT_rights_opposition

Thanks, Doug--DCX (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm gonna beg off this one for several reasons:

• Things are a mite hectic in my real life.

• The whole category system is something I neither know much about nor care much about; I'm not sure of the point of it all, and don't feel like spending the time researching it now (particularly as per previous point.)

• Calling me in in this case may come across as a WP:CANVASS attempt.

But thanks for your show of trust. I hope this works out for the best, whatever the best may be in this case! --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know what canvassing was, sorry. I actually asked because I know you are impartial and opinionated enough to make your own mind regardless of any attempt by me to sway it, but I can definitely understand how it would appear.--DCX (talk) 01:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, understood - but to someone who hasn't followed how often I've addressed your edits might just see it as one pro-SSM editor reaching out to another. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

cool, cool - I have invited everyone who was involved in the conversation on both sides of the issue--DCX (talk) 06:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: another article that like St. John's Seminary that suffered a deletion

Hello, I think you have a feel for me and I respect the way you editted the referenced seminary article. Another article I have under watch recieved a visit from some editors, who according to some other editors, beat down all others in the way John Bosco. A minor point was the inclusion of don and his first name in almost the entire article which goes against WP:MOS. Bosco has a Controversy section that was a 2006 dispute settled to supposedly what appears now. I say supposedly because I only have only been back on Wikipedia since 2009 and that section has not been editted warred/deleted as since the two older editors reappeared the other day. One has a particular agenda that is evident. In his edit summary deleting the section with SummaryDIFF. In essence, he wanted to bait the supposed author. I am not the author. I am on this article primarily because it gets lots of vandalism.

My record is very clear: as best I can, I wikidefend articles good and bad alike from vandalism. When I say good and bad, I mean that there are articles I disagree with the subject matter but am only there to prevent vandalism. I actually like Bosco and know friends that went to Bosco Highs and Salesians. I will agree that the controversy section is not the best written piece out there. However, this was a negotiated dispute settlemnent. I believe that user:Albeiror24 brought in user:Mamalujo as Mamalujo was not on Bosco's article since the beginning of this year.

His last post on Bosco's talkpage seizing on one statement I made is taken out of context because he doesn't know like I believe you do. The current church scandals are justified in some cases but also fanning great criticism, skepticism, and anger. And with Wikipedia, it appears that it is bringing editors who write from a sense of recentism versus this is online encyclopedia. Yes, recent facts do get added but Wikipedia:Recentism applies.

I am not bringing you in as a friend. I respect you as an editor who examine the article and do what is right by it. Unfortunately the controversy as described gets ghits. And while Albeiror24 may have a point that Bosco is not around to defend himself or that more correctly this is a WP:BLP where poorly sourced material can be summarily deleted, he does not have that justification especially with this being a 2006 settled dispute. It's one thing to improve the article or section by disproving it but so far he seems more interested in just whitewashing it.

I am more than willing to open the dispute from a pure wikidefender/Page Patroller responsibility. As per you saw on St. John's Seminary, I hate wholesale deletions. Granted even the seminary's section may have been poorly sourced, but it still had a scandal which is now better worded and sourced.

If editors can find better sources or actually improve that section or disprove it, then so be it. But to walk in, delete and then bait editors is not the way Wikipedia is editted. Thanks in advance. --Morenooso (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I may not have much time to be involved further, but as you'll see I took my pass on the Talk page. -Nat Gertler (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I like your rewrite but have a feeling the other two editors won't. They really reject the whole paragraph and especially will not like seing the word, pederastic, applied to Bosco. I tried to warn them by deleting the material they would open this section up to more eyes. Albeiror24 seemed to be spoiling for drawing this issue out. I believe that if he had gone on the talkpage and sought consensus, the issue might have gone differently. Another user on Bosco's talkpage made reference to the fact that along with Mamalujo they have bullied the article before. It seems they have been off the article for awhile as I have not seen them since the beginning of this year. I am mostly on the article as a wikidefender. It got some major vandalistic hits starting at the end of January which stretched through most of March. I know there are three admins on the article and also another Page Patroller, Bradjamesbrown. He is a pretty good wikidefender too and not much gets by him. Unfortunately on his userpage, he recently posted he will be taking a slight wikibreak. None of the admins or Bradjamesbrown would let something like this section be added unless it had sources. Albeiror24 claims it was added in February this year but the LGBT settled dispute suggests otherwise. I wish it didn't have to go to LGBT again but I sense the admins have taken a sideline approah. Thanks again, you have proven yourself true.--Morenooso (talk) 00:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Bosco

How can you call "sourced" a section having even 3 problematic markups? Better to hide it until it's solved. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I call it sourced becaused it's sourced. The problematic markups were largely surrounding a second paragraph which is not currently part of the section. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Linda McMahon

Thank you, thank you, thank you! Your [3] on Linda McMahon has finally stated what I have fought for in edit after edit. She is the presumptive Republican nominee, and I appreciate the fact that you recognized it, and were brave enough to put it in there.

Again and again, I have had to bicker with Schiff fans who removed Linda's photo from the United States senate election in Connecticut, 2010 because Schiff and Simmons are still on the primary ballot. It's refreshing to find a person who agrees with something I do. --Screwball23 talk 14:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I had crossed the situation with something else in my mind. Linda is not yet the R candidate, although she will most likely be. I have corrected that. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Aww, for a minute, I thought I had a friend. ;-) Actually, I was leaning more towards "presumptive Republican nominee", and in the context you had, yes, it is safer to leave it as -a- R candidate. no worries. Please contribute to the article's text when you get time. It's a large section of text, and I am convinced there are typos in there.--Screwball23 talk 01:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Good work! I like what I see!--Screwball23 talk 03:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		To User:NatGertler, whose contributions to Linda McMahon were especially valued. The page continues to be a work in progress, and with your help, Good Article status is that much closer. Thank you! Screwball23 talk 04:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Your removal of information on the Haavara agreement article

The article Haavara agreement currently contains a link to Edwin Black's book:

• "The Transfer Agreement"

The author and date of the book were not clear from the link, so I spelled it out:

• Edwin Black : The Transfer Agreement: The Dramatic Story of the Pact Between the Third Reich and Jewish Palestine, 1984.

You, however, deleted my edit to the article, with the comment:

"If these are sources for this article, should be referenced; else, not listed as sources".  

Since I was merely clarifying in greater detail a reference that was already there (albeit unclear, unless the reader followed the link to Amazon), I'm going to assume that you deleted it recklessly out of complete ignorance and disregard for the actual contents of the article.Jimhoward72 (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

So now I see, since I pointed it out to you, you have gone back and deleted the most reliable source for the article, Edwin Black's book, but on the other hand, left Lenni Brenner's controversial Zionism in the Age of the Dictators Chapter 6: The Jewish Anti-Nazi Boycott and the Zionist-Nazi Trade Agreement as a reference. Basically, you are beginning to vandalize the article, and damage it instead of improve it.Jimhoward72 (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If, as you say, Edwin Black's book is self-published and discouraged, then how does Lenni Brenner's work stand? (Not that I have anything against his book - in my opinion, the more available sources and leads for a reader to pursue, the better - especially when they are with well-documented, accurate footnotes, as were the two sources that got deleted recently from the article).Jimhoward72 (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Linda McMahon

Hey Nat,

as promised, I have come to speak with you in regards to the Linda McMahon page. I can see we have several issues up for discussion.

• The mention of the Senate race. She is running in the 2010 Connecticut Senate race. Yes, she is running for Senator of Connecticut, and yes, she is running for one of Connecticut's Senate seats in the U.S. Congress. I believe she can suffice with the explanation given, which gives a wikilink to the 2010 Connecticut Senate race. The Chris Dodd page, for instance, as well as many other Senators and Senate candidates Richard Blumenthal, Merrick Alpert Rob Simmons, have similar explanations. My feeling is it sets a bad precedent, and because there is only one seat up for grabs in Connecticut this year (Lieberman is 2012 I think), it is not exactly necessary to expand on the purpose of the race. The quote, "running for one of Connecticut's seats in the U.S. Senate" seems a bit lengthy for me. Again, let me know your thoughts on this. It is not my biggest concern, and I'm most willing to compromise here.
• I appreciate your use of different verb tense in "Stating a willingness to spend up to $50 million, she campaigns on issues". I don't know what your feelings are, but in my reading, the sentences are becoming a jumble. I think the part about what she is campaigning on should be separate from the sentence on her campaign finances. They are not directly related, and I think more can be done with the fragment about her willingness to spend $50 million. My best guess would be, "She has already spent $16 million on her campaign, and is willing to spend up to $50 million." Let me know what you think on this.
• The Hogan images are absolutely important to the issue of steroid abuse and the steroid trials. I do not feel he is used excessively. I understand your feeling at first is that he is being placed twice, and this may seem to be a clutter on the page. I put him in the section on the Monday Night Wars because his leave to WCW was a major issue for the WWE and the Monday Night Wars. Please remember that he is a major icon in WWF/WCW history, and his leave was significant, especially considering the fact that it happened at that time after the steroid scandals.--Screwball23 talk 03:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

As there are multi editors that you are having some of these issues with, I have posted relevant discussion on the article's talk page, which is the appropriate place. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I noticed you made an alteration in the Hulk Hogan images, adn I still have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, the photo of Hollywood Hogan in black wasn't that great to begin with, but I felt it had the feel and connotation associated with the Monday Night Wars. However, after seeing the article with the photo change, I have to admit, you made me feel like my caption and my work was well-featured. Overall, I am fine with what we have now.

My greatest fear now is that the Steroid Trial section will begin to be stripped away in future edits.--Screwball23 talk 00:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I think your fear has good foundation, in that much of that section is not dealing in any direct way with the subject of the article. Yes, it's important stuff in WWE history, and yes, it happened during her presidency, but little of it is directly linked to her.

However, I think the ideal solution here does include limiting the amount of this material in the Linda article, but not just moving it over to the WWE article; rather, it's probably a significant enough incident in both WWE history and American steroid history to warrant its own article. You should consider porting it over into an article under the proper name of the trial. Then it would be something referenced in the Linda article as a "Main article" listing. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Failing to Investigate Before Making Allegation

(Note: section moved from User page to Talk page by Nat Gertler)

Nat, you accused me of improperly altering another editor's contribution. However, you failed to investigate the underlying circumstances before doing so. I assume you were talking about BrendanFrye, who had just blanked out an entire section I had added to the discussion (a section which was later restored by me and resulted in a thriving debate).

When my contributions are blanked out in a discussion section, my policy is to blank out or alter each and every comment made by the offending editor. The policy is perfectly reasonable and deters further offenses. You may certainly believe that this policy contravenes Wikipedia policy, but unless you in fact take action against the offender who originally precipitated the invocation of the policy, you yourself violate Wikipedia policy. Therefore, I pose to you the following questions:

(1) Did you do a thorough and proper investigation into Brendan Frye's conduct before leveling your accusations against me?

(2) Were you aware at the time (or did you subsequently become aware) that Brendan Frye had blanked out an entire section contributed by me to the discussion section?

(3) Now that I have made you aware of Brendan Frye's offense, are you going to seek that his editing privileges be suspended, or leaving a comment on his user page?

If your answer to any of the above is "no", I would suggest that it is time for you to take a wikibreak :)TruthfulPerson (talk) 23:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Nat, I think you know me. I definitely know you. I also am aware of the circumstances this visiting editor brings to your usertalkpage. Let's just say neither you nor I need a wikibreak. ----moreno oso (talk) 00:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to mention: if it was me, I would either erase the useless header above this one and close this one by putting:

• {{hat}} - under the section header; and,

• {{hab}} - under whatever you deem that last post. ----moreno oso (talk) 00:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This is all, of course, not only nonsense, but a case of the "TruthfulPerson" being hypocritical. My statement on his talk page said nothing about User:BrendanFrye, and was not about Brendan Frye. It does, in fact, have a link in my comment itself showing exactly what the alteration he made was. It was an edit to another editor's comment on his talk page, putting words into another editor's mouth. Horribly inappropriate.... and "TruthfulPerson" might have bothered clicking on that link before making a false accusation against me. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Concur with you 100 percent. Sorry, I did not notice he had posted on your userpage. If I had, I would reverted the nonsense as you put it. And, to think that someone thinks you need a wikibreak. But, now that I think about it, Nat, you ought to visit Jimbo page and asked for a paid one. You never no, he might toss in a tour of the Foundation if you ask nicely. . . ;) ----moreno oso (talk) 01:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, just for the record, what Brendan did was delete an off-topic section from Talk:Al Gore in which TruthfulPerson bragged that there were "dozens of articles" on Wikipedia on the allegations against Mr. Gore. TP was lying when he said that, but that wasn't the reason for the deletion. There are rules about article talk pages; they're supposed to be used to discuss improvements to the related article, not any random fantasy a user happens to be engaging in at the moment. TP, on the other hand, selectively deleted Brendan's comments from a number of threads, comments that had been replied to, thereby rendering discussions impossible to follow. The fact that he says it is his "policy" to do this and believes that policy to be "perfectly reasonable" clearly shows that Wikipedia is not the place for him. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 12:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I reckoned it was likely something of that nature, having seen TP invent policies not only for himself but for Wikipedia as a whole. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think someone in this thread needs a wikibreak and it aint the last three editors. ;0 ----moreno oso (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Erroneous warning Civility & forgery warning - Level 2

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
Your alteration of the markup that Template:PRODWarning provides, to substitute an extended-middle-finger graphic violates Civility and NPA; the template's advisory "You're encouraged to modify the template as appropriate for unique circumstances", does not apply here, and your use of a version that would never be appropriate, while leaving the "Template:PRODWarning" comment intact, amounts to a forged template that gives the impression (especially to, as in this case, a relatively inexperienced user who can't use templates accurately let alone tell the difference between a hand-patched template and the use of an option that has been built into the template) you speak for the community: you have effectively attributed your insult to a Wikipedia consensus.
--Jerzy•t 07:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I did no forging of the template - I simply used Twinkle to place the PROD. Someone must have messed with the master PROD template or with twinkle itself. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

And here for the record is the alteration that was made to Template:PRODwarning inserting that graphic, made by an IP user, who was not me. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

    Nat, you were right when you wrote me as follows:

You recently posted on my talk page a level 2 warning claiming that I had forged Template:PRODWarning in order to put an extended middle-finger graphic on a user's talk page. As you'll be able to see by this edit, what you described was not the case; I did not alter the template posting, but rather someone else had vandalized the template itself, and I (unknowingly - I was working through Twinkle and never saw the user's page result) had posted the warning during the period that the vandalism remained in place.

I applaud your well-intended efforts to police such inappropriate postings. In this case, I would appreciate your verifying the information that I have just given you and posting a comment in the section you added to my talk page, retracting the accusation. I am an active editor in good standing and would prefer not to leave that accusation standing baldly there. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

And clearly i was wrong. I'm not sure whether i consciously took into account the fact that the template has an intermediate level of protection, which presumably would have prevented the vandalism, but if i did, that was carelessness on my part: that protection was applied later, apparently in response to the vandalism, so clearly reasoning that my scenario was the only plausible one would be fallacious. I'm sorry to have inconvenienced you, and i trust this retraction (and my immediately impending absolution of you where the -- uh, deviant -- warning was posted) is as good as as can be done to make you whole.
--Jerzy•t 17:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

We're good. I respect your vigilance and appreciate your efforts to make matters right in this case! --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Michael Attalides page

Please refer to my response to your notice on my talk page. Please respond on my talk page. Thanks --Abacchus1974 (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for a summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Perry_v._Schwarzenegger&diff=377378076&oldid=377374675 Without an irony. Actually, I was thinking about this before as a better solution than lengthy expression of court's opinion and I tend to agree with that now. Thank you for collaboration and an improvement. --Destinero (talk) 05:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Feedback

Hi, could you provide feedback to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:LGBT_parenting/FAQ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:LGBT_parenting and their's development over last few days? Thank you. --Destinero (talk) 06:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

LGBT parenting

Could you please contribute with your opinion to this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Talk:LGBT_parenting/FAQ Thank you! --Destinero (talk) 16:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

why have you forsaken me?

I know we haven't agreed on some points, but I never thought I would have to defend myself against this nonsense. I am willing to negotiate points on the Steroid Trial and ring boy affair, but outright removal is completely overblown.

Why have you reverted me? Please, check the talk page, because I am definitely against more than I can handle. I am fighting to defend a page against someone who is just gaming the system and takes pleasure in doing so. The worst part is, I have no one to help me. I'm working against maybe 2-3 people. Somehow that 2-3 people is considered "consensus".

Again, Nat, I have put my arguments forward, and I definitely need some help. I know you have a clear, reasoned mind, and I thank you for your post on my page. Unfortunately, winning this argument (and edit wars in general) is not my strong point. That's not the reason I came to help wikipedia. --Screwball23 talk 03:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: reversion without reason

You were also violating WP:POINT. Those were my reasons, those policies I included in the edit summary. If he wants to change it, let him. It's his time to do with as he wishes. You were a jerk in that edit summary, biting the guy. Perhaps, like me, he wasn't aware of that guideline. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTBROKEN isn't a policy, but an editing guideline. I wasn't making a personal attack, but a comment. Revert as you'd like. I still think it's silly and pointless. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It was a comment on behaviour. But I suppose I could have worded it better. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

BLPPROD

Hi Nat. Just to let you know, in case you missed the discussions, that any link whatsoever that mentions the subject, wherever it is on the page, is sufficient to disallow the use of the BLPPROD template. CSD, normal PROD, and AfD can of course still be used in such cases.--Kudpung (talk) 03:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I actually did see. I don't fully agree with the decision, but such is life. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't either - far from it in fact, but the RfC got closed before a consensus could be reached. The idea at the moment is to give it a while, and then try and drum up some support to allow the BLPPROD for pages that contain links, but none that comply with our WP:RS policies. --Kudpung (talk) 08:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI enforcement request notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Note: this involves Screwball23 and the ruckus over at Linda McMahon.

BTW, my apologies if you weren't in support of removing this material. You did revert out Screwball's changes yesterday; I interpreted that as agreement they did not belong. I've removed your name from the list of those in support. Fell Gleaming^talk 18:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Questions Regarding Devi Ever Article

Hello thank you for your patience while we have tried to establish notability on the article in question. New at this so I apologize if i am approaching this incorrectly. However i'm not quite sure what type of references documents need to be provided and which ones on the page should be removed to tidy up the page. I'm confused because similar pedal companies such as Death_By_Audio and Z.Vex_Effects seem to only use biased references most notably Z.Vex only uses his own website. Again thank you for your time and again I apologize if I am approaching this incorrectly but I would very much appreciate clarification on what needs to be done in order to keep the page up. --Maz91379 (talk) 07:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Gary Raser

Reference to User_talk:Spasage#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Gary_Raser

Article on Garry Raser has been removed under speedy deletion. When I was creating article I have given proper reference of the person and why he deserves a place in Wikipedia. If you make a search on him on Google you would find many reference of him. I was expecting that it would get more contents as time pass. According to me, Raser deserves a article in Wikipedia and he is notable enough. Spasage (talk) 06:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Responded at User_talk:Spasage#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Gary_Raser --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Paul Barry

Dear Nat,

A million thank-yous for moving Paul Barry back to songwriter! Ladyleeloo (talk) 23:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't ask, don't tell

Thank you for reversing the unsourced, opinionated edits. Within minutes of the ruling, I went to the CNN website and copied down the exact wording in the article. It was what came over the AP wire. After many slanted edits, the original sentence with the reference is all that is necessary. I had a feeling that the original wording by the AP would be distorted on this contentious issue. Many thanks for sticking to the facts. Juri Koll (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not see the word persecution in the references. Accordingly, I reverted as POV. Distortion of the references is a problem that every editor is concerned about. Sticking to the facts, as verified by WP:RS, is what we strive for. Thanks. --S. Rich (talk) 20:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

NOM

Thanks for the feedback! I've replied and made changes to implement all of your suggestions. Much appreciated! --j⚛e decker^talk 00:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you sir

Thank you for helping me get used to the Wikipedia community and helping me correct my Articles. I look forward to your future dedication towards me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamaicanMD (talk • contribs) 09:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Ouija Board Criticism

Hey, I've started giving this page the rough scrub with a brush treatment. Could you please let me know what you think of it? As the person who nominated it for deletion I'd like to know if you think there is anything worth redeeming in there. Please note that it's still in progress so if you think I should give up or go in a certain direction (there seems to be a lot to say about them being banned in Russia) please let me know! Thanking you in advance. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Jeff Ragsdale

Hi NatGertler. You worked on Jeff Ragsdale's page at one time. Ragsdale is currently being harassed by IP number 71.190.77.101. This person, whom we have identified through correct legal means, is a fellow actor and he started his attack on Ragsdale by submitting a fake resume regarding Ragsdale on craigslist. Then said person started a commentary regarding Jeff Ragsdale's Wikipedia "notability". This whole issue has now snowballed into a "notability" issue on Wikipedia because of IP number 71.190.77.101's false claims regarding Ragsdale. My question to you is can you leave a message on Theda's page about your sentiments regarding Ragsdale's notability? Theda has since reinserted the notability tag on Ragsdale's Wikipedia page. Ragsdale is clearly a notable person. One would just have to look at the rich sources, and all of his television and film credits, as well as his international activism. Or could you possibly point me in other directions? Richard Peterson 11-20-10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardPeterson44 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I shall forgo this particular kerfuffle. There are more appropriate ways of getting more attention - WP:RFC, for example. As it is, the page looks a lot like a WP:PROMO page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Graham Panckhurst

I have added references to the article. Thanks for your help. Kwiki6 (talk) 03:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

AfD of Blame sydney

It appears that Twinkle broke for you when you tried to AfD Blame sydney. I manually finished it for you; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blame sydney. You may want to place a better deletion rationale on the discussion page. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Same-Sex Marriage in the United States

Nat, while we disagree frequently about various edits, I appreciated you catching my mis-edit of the Sarah Palin quote on this page. My mistake.184.74.22.161 (talk) 01:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Your repeated insertion of improper POV material at John Bosco

Your repeated insertion of the same improper POV pushing material at John Bosco is, frankly, getting out of hand. If insist upon doing such things, then perhaps Wikipedia is not the project for you. Mamalujo (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

You may wish to review the actual recent history of the article, where several editors have corrected your destructive edits of sourced material. If you want to convince people that quoting Bosco in an article on Bosco is somehow POV, then use the discussion page for that. To simply engage in ongoing destructive edits in order to cover up what Bosco said is not, however, appropriate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Athena Xenidou Biography

Hello, I've noticed that you have proposed the biographic page of Athena Xenidou for deletion. I just wanted to tell you that I am a newbie in Wikipedia, and my intention was not to post an unsubstantiated article. I have repeatedly edited the page, and I hope that it has been brought to an acceptable standard.

Should that not be the case, I would be greatful if you could point out areas where I could better the page in order to avoid deletion.

I would like to sincerely apologise for causing any inconvienience. Thanking you, AndreasO — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreasO (talk • contribs) 19:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Opinion

Hi. Could you add your opinion? [4] Regards Ron 1987 16:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Nat!! We have included several references and articles written about Dr. Schwartz. Could you please review and tell us if these are the type of articles you are speaking of?? Once again...thanks for your help!! We do appreciate your time and opinions.

http://www.secondsout.com/columns/thomas-hauser/medical-issues-and-the-aaprp

http://books.google.com/books?id=Z4YnxIeX-EMC&pg=PA278&lpg=PA278&dq=michael+schwartz+ringside+hauser&source=bl&ots=YtWvS2cZwa&sig=re91hxEalQB0Sl9x32ZAODOdW5k&hl=en&ei=4VcOTdjxEMys8Abth7jjCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbsdoc (talk • contribs) 19:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

About the request for speedy deletion of Marianna Vardinoyanni's article

Hello, I don't know where to ask, but I saw your name in the article's history, I wonder if can you or someone re-read the fixed article and tell me if it meets the requirements to not be deleted? I am not sure how copyright works (Copyright means 100% copy of a text from another site, or Copyright also extends to altered texts / paragraphs (altered so it can no longer be characterized as a 100% copy of the original text / paragraph, but still it uses some words like the original text / paragraph does). What I did is just to remove anything that looks indentical to the original text, and tried to re-write the article with my own words, and I hope it does has no typo errors. I apologize for making the article even smaller than before, my lack of more info about Marianna Vardinoyannis and my bad English Language skill, which it is not my native language, is a bad combination against the creation of larger and more detailed articles. Since an international personality like Marianna Vardinoyannis cannot be left article-less, I hope that at least someone can re-write it the article again, before its deletion, so Wikipedia can finally have an article about this important person. Thanks. --SilentResident (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey

Just though you would like to know about and weigh-in on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queef Fraiche since your proposal for deletion was removed by the author. Passionless (talk) 03:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

blp prod

That tag on Rosie Mercado was a common error--do not be concerned about it, but be aware of the possibility that references will be there though not so marked--it will also happen that such material is located inconspicuously within an article without being worded as a formal reference. Of course, I still doubt notability, but I've placed a tag to give a few days grace, since it is being worked on in good faith--which is by no means always the case. I'd be grateful if you followed up in a few days, in case I do not get to it. DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Responded on your page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

tthanks, that's ok if you dont follow up, because once it gets on my talk p., i usually remember. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

blp prod

Hello, NatGertler. You have new messages at Subverted's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Subverted (talk • contribs) 04:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Judge Walker's Ruling

It appears I was mistaken then, thanks for telling me. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Propaganda - the Hellenistic Period has been renamed in the semi-protected article of Ancient Macedonia- Page needs clean up

Hello, I apologize if I posted it in wrong forum. Nat is the only editor I know so far in Wikipedia. I don't know who to contact so I can call for a fix / correction of a propagandistic word used in a specific article that is historically inaccurate and goes against Wikipedia's neutral policy.

In the article about Ancient Macedonia which is a protected article (due to vandalism), anything seems ok in most language versions of it, except one. The article in all the language versions(including English, french, greek, spanish, etc) is ok, except the same article in Macedonian version, which has some propagandistic political influence, and has several of its terms/words renamed, and are very inaccurate and its use goes against the policy of Wikipedia (NPOV). I have spotted the word Hellenistic in the Macedonian Language's version of the above article has been renamed into Macedonistic (македонскиот), which is inaccurate and must be addressed as soon as possible. I call for the replacement of the word Macedonistic, so it can be historically accurate and neutral and obey to the Wikipedia's rules. The article (in English Language) can be found here Ancient Macedonia while the same article in the Macedonian language can be found in: http://mk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%9C%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%98%D0%B0. By comparing the 2 versions, I have noticed that while the English version (and of other languages as well) of the article uses the historical term Hellenistic to describe the period the kingdom of Macedonia expanded, the Macedonian version of the same article breaks the laws by using the political propagandistic term македонскиот (English: Macedonistic) and I call the editors to fix it. It must be removed or at least replaced with the word Хеленистичкиот (English: Hellenistic).

In case none knows, the term Macedonistic is political word, and has been introduced in the early 90's (1991-1995), due to the political dispute between Greece and Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) over the historical heritage of the ancient Kingdom of Macedonia, which led both sides to a nationalistic fever. During the dispute, the nationalistic non-government organization MRU (University of Macedonia in Skopje, Republic of Macedonia-FYROM), suggested the change of the term Hellenistic with the newly-founded term Macedonistic to describe a period internationally known as Hellenistic, due to their nationalistic delirium for political purposes in the controversy against Greece. The term Hellenistic was replaced by the term Macedonistic so to claim the historical period for their own, mainly for political purposes.

I call Wikipedia to be neutral towards politics and only show the truth about Macedonia in ALL the languages. The editors to remove any possible political terms used in the Macedonian-Language version of the article Ancient Macedonia and remove the the propagandistic word "Macedonistic" and replace them with historically-correct words. To note that the article about Ancient Macedonia in all the other languages are ok, and use the internationally recognized term Hellenistic, which has different meaning than the term Macedonistic. To note that the European Union and the United Nations already suggested Republic of Macedonia to correct their school books and use the right term regarding the Hellenistic Period. --SilentResident (talk) 10:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I really cannot help you with this concern, for very practical reasons. Each different language of Wikipedia has their own set of policies and procedures. If the problem were with an English-language article, I might be able to direct you where to go for help, but I do not read Macedonian and would not be able to suss out what their policies are. Beyond suggesting that you raise the issue on the article's talk pages, I do not have much useful to suggest to you. Nat Gertler (talk) 14:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. Is there someone of the Wikipedia Stuff who checks the articles in Macedonian Language and / or is responsible for protecting Macedonian-Language articles of Wikipedia from any NPOV violations? There could be at least someone who can be informed about the NPOV issues in an article of a specific language, as I doubt that the common people of Republic of Macedonia will be willing to fix the NPOV issues, when they are (much like in most disputes) the "one side" of the dispute, and thus, they don't see the matter from a neutral point of view as I do. I am Greek (the other side of the dispute) but I have studied in France and I have a neutral point of view on the dispute about Ancient Macedonia, despite my nationality. If can you or someone appoint me to a person with the authority/permission to edit protected articles, and who knows to read Macedonian Language (or Bulgarian, as both languages are very close to each other), and correct the NPOV issues, then I will be very glad. It is much better that we don't let some articles in Wikipedia have propaganda and NPOV violations, just because they are written in a very small language which only 1.500.000 million people worldwide can speak, and due to this, the articles in this language are very vulnerable in NPOV violations. Wikipedia must be a site which ensures that even the smallest nations of the world, such as Republic of Macedonia, has access to articles that have not been politically influenced. Please if someone can appoint me to where can I ask for a staff member / director who can read Macedonian and make a clean up to the specific article, I will be highly thankful. Is there a page where normal users such as me can notify the Wikipedia staff about NPOV-related issues on protected articles? --SilentResident (talk) 10:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You seem to want Wikipedia to work in a way that Wikipedia doesn't. Staff doesn't tend to get involved in editing debates unless there is something horridly egregious (and no, this isn't that, it's a nomenclature debate) or in some cases after it has worked its way up through several levels of dispute resolution. You've now taken the appropriate first step, which is listing your concerns on the relevant talk pages. Try to achieve consensus there first. Become a properly registered user for the Macedonian Wikipedia (I'm not sure if your existing registration counts or not), and edit it yourself, or at least add an NPOV tag to the article and make it clear in your talk page discussion that that was why you added the tag. That's the way things are started (although I would review the talk page and make sure this has not already been hashed out extensively.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Nah, I don't want Wikipedia to work in a way it doesn't. I just though there was some kind of staff (or "watchers" or whatever they are called) that can "watch" over the articles and guarantee that the articles are protected from political vandalism, and I though the staff/protectors/watchers were the one that "lock" the articles (from free-to-edit into protected or semi-protected). Thanks anyways, I will try and see if can I re-register for a different language. If no way works, or there is no response in the talk page, I will leave and forget it and at least I know that I, at least, tried. :-) --SilentResident (talk) 06:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Global Science Books COI

I didn't notice that she identified herself as a GSB author. Thanks for catching it and leaving her a COI note. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Demeny Voting (transferred from post on user page)

Hi Nat, good points on this article, I've tried to balance it up. If you are satisfied this is now resolved, feel free to remove the NPOV template, otherwise maybe other people will make it even better over time.--Hontogaichiban (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States wikifying.

Yeah, that sounds right. I'll keep the speaker description. May be a day or so before I finish it....Naraht (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

School House "bestseller"

Hey, could you clarify what you meant by "not grounded in any list or category"? A number of sources do refer to it as a bestseller (Moran and "The Sins of Billy James," as well as a couple of other books, not cited, that can be found by Googling the title and "bestseller"), but is there a WP standard for naming something as a bestseller that must be met? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

While I don't know of any specific Wikipedia policy surrounding the term "bestseller", but as you can see discussed on the term's own page, it tends to be used in hype-y and unmeaningful ways. It's one thing if one can say "the book spent three weeks on the New York Times Paperback Non-Fiction Best-seller list" - there one has a specified source with specific methods of measuring sales, and a specific category it's being measured against. But just to say that it's a best-seller... well, one could say that both the movies Gone with the Wind and Terror of Tiny Town are best-sellers -- one's the best-selling movie of all time (by some methods of measurement), and the other is the best-selling all-midget musical western of all time (by just about any measure which one could invent). Was the School House book the best-selling pamphlet in the nation? for November The best-selling book in the Southern states for 1968? The best-selling thing that the publisher ever produced? Without specifics, the term "best-seller" is one that sounds like it means something, but doesn't; it doesn't give us any information that the article doesn't have without it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, that makes a lot of sense. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)