User talk:NatGertler/Archive 7

< Archive 6

Archive 7

All Pages:

1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  ... (up to 100)

Eastman

Thanks for your input and edits. Reading the feedback (of 41, at this point) I ran into this post that might be helpful to the discussion, though not the inclusion issue. A couple of posters claimed that Eastman had engaged in Obama Orly Taitz-level birtherism, but I'm not aware of same at this point. (Orly ran for AG in 2014 in CA, the year Harris won reelection, and finished the "R" primary with 3.1% 6th out of 7 candidates.) Her candidacy was endorsed by black "preacher" James David Manning who believes homosexuals should be stoned to death. She was apparently not endorsed by James Dobson's Family "Research" Council, though she claimed to have been. (Could they have been worried about their 501(c)3 status?) Feel free to erase, of course: Activist (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the piece you posted her, due to WP:COPYVIO concerns. If you are interested in having things reflected on the John C. Eastman page, it would be better to raise discussion there... but an in-the-comments analysis is not a reliable source, and we do not need to be deeply discussing the natural-born citizens issue, as we already have quite reliable sources telling us that Eastman is wrong. And as a general rule, Internet comments sections are not sources for Great Truths. (That is a Great Truth I put here, on my comments page.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry if you misunderstood. I expected you would delete my inclusion of the reader feedback as clutter and that's why I signed my response to you before the addition of that opinion. It was just an observation that I was passing along from the source you supplied. (I just read the WaPo articles, as well.) I also further apologize. I had written a new "Elections" section to organize the article, per the IP editor's suggestion, and thought I'd posted it, in which I'd included the results of Eastman's primary loss in the 34th District primary. As I went back and forth between the Eastman article, its Talk section, and this Talk page, I accidentally erased the edit that I'd gotten together. I'll redo that. Thanks for your input which is always welcome. Activist (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I disagree

With you closing my complaint so fast but will not continue chasing it. Being called a 'werdo' or 'weirdo' is still insulting. Don't comment on my talk page please.

BlueD954 (talk) 09:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@BlueD954: I was not the editor who closed that discussion, so it's not me you're disagreeing with. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Inside the group terminology

Thanks for that removal. I actually had that same edit in there, in Preview mode, all ready to go; but I didn't follow through. I had already done the "find", and located the insertion in Jan. 2018 (by an editor who left shortly thereafter). The fact that it lasted this long amazed me, as it's clearly pov and unencyclopedic. Given how controversial a topic it is, I didn't want to get sucked into a quarrel, so I just abandoned the edit, hoping someone would come along some day, and do it. Pleasantly surprised it took hours, and not years. There are other problems in the lead as well, and I decided not to take that on, either; namely, paragraph 3 is unique info and summarizes nothing in the body of the article. But if you look at paragraph 3 of the opposing article, it's a mirror image of this one, also unique and not related to information there, although each one points to the other article. This smells of some sort of "deal" that may have been made between the two camps in some Rfc somewhere, and I didn't want to get into that, either, if that is the case. However, lead guidelines are clear, and neither paragraph belongs in their respective article, as the lead is supposed to summarize *that* topic, and not some other one, and is not supposed to have unique information not described in detail in the article body. If you have the stomach to deal with all that as well, even better. Mathglot (talk) 23:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I take my battles in small chunks. I am wearied by so many things these days. (And, frankly, whether the material in the intro is a summary of what's to come is less important to me than whether it is relevant and prepares you for what is to come.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Activities

Where does an organization's opposition or support of a particular position belong? I put support under Activities, but should I have created another section? I'm referencing this change: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberty_Counsel&diff=next&oldid=978939063 Thanks. Ihaveadreamagain 18:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we need to chronicle every passing mention of every local issue. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Article

Hey NatGertler, I noticed lately that you were removing “voice actor” from several celebritie articles, and I was curious you could remove the one on the Scott Weinger article. Because I kept on explaining to them what you said, “voice acting” is a subset of “acting”, but unfortunately my request keeps getting declined. 2600:1000:B04B:322:3007:4FEA:8EE4:7659 (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, unfortunately it got restored again. Deacon Vorbis isn’t listening, I was just following the Wikipedia policy. 2600:1000:B03F:D3B7:4035:CF5C:866E:4D29 (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey NatGertler, I just wanna say thank you for backing me up and defending me from Vorbis. I just didn’t why he’s making a big fuss over this issue, because I’m not. I was only following the Wikipedia policy of the Subset policy. 2600:1000:B065:1E3E:7198:52CB:502:AF1D (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Your Feedback: re: ULC

Thank you for your feedback. In particular, thank you for catching that one of the previous articles cited was referring to a different ULC and not to the Modesto organization. You caught something that I did not see in the article and that is appreciated. Secondly, I went back and reviewed the sources and found an article by The New York Times which first criticized the ULC based in Modesto, CA as a diploma mill in 1977, using that wordage, and then found two articles by The Irish Times, rather than relying on the short piece, which criticized the organization, based in Modesto, CA, as a "degree mill." Thank you again for the feedback and for being so clear about what issues were present and how to address them. That was very helpful in re-examining it. I did not feel discouraged at all. I found your words to be constructive and encouraging. Thank you.SeminarianJohn (talk) 02:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Article

Hey Nat, again I just wanted to say thank you once again for the removal of the voice acting occupation on the Scott Weinger article, there's just one more thing on that article that hasn't been removed yet, the short description section above that article also has "voice actor" in it that hasn't been removed yet, that's all. 2600:1000:B058:69A8:5D89:667D:320E:FC8 (talk) 21:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Raegan Revord

Based on your comments, you might want to know Raegan Revord of Young Sheldon's article is currently at User:Alden_Loveshade/Raegan_Revord. I hope to see it return to main space. Responsible edits are welcomed there. Alden Loveshade (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Tell us about your experiences editing Wikipedia!

Hi!

I am conducting an interview study about how Wikipedia editors collaborate in the English edition of Wikipedia. The project description is on the WMF meta wiki: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Characterizing_Collaboration_Models_in_the_EN,_FR_and_ES_Language_Editions_of_Wikipedia.

This research study is part of a larger project where we are trying to understand how editors collaborate in different language editions of Wikipedia. I was looking through our team’s prior dataset and came across conversations that you have had on the IsAnybodyDown? article talk page. I am interested in learning more about those conversations.

Would you be willing to participate in a 1 hour interview about your experience? The interview will take place virtually over Skype, Hangout, Zoom or phone.

Our research team will make our best efforts to keep your participation confidential. Participation in our study is voluntary. If you are willing to participate in this interview, or if you have additional questions please email me. Or, if you are concerned about direct email you can contact me through Wikipedia’s mail feature.

If you are interested or have any other questions, please let us know.

via Email: tbipat@uw.edu or English Wikipedia: tbipat

Tbipat (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Stop reverting my edits.

You keep calling my edits opinions. What specifically is an opinion? Can you give an example. Stop abusing this website and reverting the hard work of other editors.

You may want to start looking at Talk:David G. Stork. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Age and birth year in Lillian Randolph

Thank you for supporting my removal of the unsourced date of birth in Lillian Randolph. I appreciate your follow-up edit and the comments that you posted on the article's talk page. I don't understand why some editors seem to prefer unsourced dates and ages over what is found in reliable published sources. I'm glad that the changes caught your attention. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

ANI discussion

I have mentioned you at an ANI discussion I have started. Mo Billings (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

hello

help me to edit with Flutter (comic series) please

• I am adding a pointless filler response here years later just so that this gets archived at some point. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

EU DisinfoLab - World News Network

In 2020, the EU DisinfoLab found that the World News Network was part of a disinformation campaign that helped Asian News International reproduce negative reports produced in Brussels and Geneva, that were pro-India and negative in iterations against Pakistan and China.[7]

The above sentence was included on both pages. "Big News Network" and "World News Network". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_News_Network and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_News_Network

Seems the sentence has been deleted from "Big news Network" page because they are not at fault.. so same should be the

These links don't talk about World News Network since it is a news aggregator collecting articles from many sources. https://www.voanews.com/south-central-asia/pakistan-demands-un-eu-investigate-fake-pro-india-ngos-media https://www.dawn.com/news/1594928

Skv282 (talk) 11:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

No, it looks like it was deleted from the Big News Network page because the person adding it did a lot of damage to the article when doing so. That it is not listed on those other articles does not mean that it is not in the EU report, nor that it is not relevant. Indeed, four pages of the 89 page report were devoted to WNN (and more for BNN.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Article

Hey NetGertler, I need your help with something. I’ve been trying to request edit to be removed on the Charles Martinet article, but my request keeps getting declined. Is there any chance you could help out of that’s ok? 97.33.66.176 (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC) 97.33.66.176 (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

They were right to turn it down. I can see no reason for the edit that you request. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

It’s ok, I understand. I’m very sorry if I wasted your time on this. I sincerely apologize. 97.33.65.199 (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Made | Nous

Hi! Thanks for the heads up on what a "minor edit" is ... I'll keep that in mind.

I don't quite understand the (polite) accusation of COI on the Made / Nous page--I don't work for Canada Media Fund, nor am I Mathieu Chantelois (as was suggested previously)! I think Made | Nous is doing some important work in terms of representation, diversity, etc. in Canadian film and television and thought they should have a better Wikipedia page. I had tried to add the logo, but it was rejected--any advice there? Thanks! Blipblip88 (talk) 00:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Jackie Kannon

Hello, NatGertler. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Jackie Kannon, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Editing biographical details for South Africa artist Peter Eastman

I am new to editing biographical information, can i not link the biographical information to the artists website Rupert1969 (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

A person is capable of putting anything on their website, so we limit what can be cited to things that aren't self-serving -- i.e., there'd be no reason to lie about them. If my website says that I attended Palmyra High School, sure, we could use that in the article. But if it says that I am the legitimate king of Paris, no. Claiming that someone is "known for" something falls slightly into that latter category. More information on this guideline can be found at Wikipedia:SELFSOURCE.

I hope that helps! --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, got it! Rupert1969 (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the changes that you flagged on a biography for Peter Eastman(artist) i have made the necessary changes to citations so that they do not reference the subjects website or associated commercial gallery. Do i then remove the flag myself?Rupert1969 (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Rupert1969Since you are addressing a specific user on their user talk page, it is not necessary to use a Help Me template to attract the attention of other editors. Thanks 331dot (talk) 09:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I suggest that you do not remove the tag yourself, given your relative lack of experience here. I will try to make some time today to look at what you've done (am a bit slammed at the moment, though.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Editing Wallace Shawn's Wikipedia article details

Hi NatGertler. I just heard that you removed the date of birth Wallace Shawn's Wikipedia's page!

Please do not remove the date of birth at Wallace Shawn's Wikipedia article. Because Wallace Shawn's date of birth is very important. And I don't want anyone to remove Wallace Shawn's date of birth.

Also, I already fixed the Wallace Shawn's date of birth. He's born on November 12, 1943.

I hope you understand this about Wallace Shawn's date of birth correction. Have a good day.

Kind regards, Daniel Slewa.

Wikipedia has a policy against including unsourced birthdates of living people, for reasons of privacy as well as accuracy. If you can find a very visible and reliable source for this birth date, then you can add it back in using that source as a reference. Otherwise, it needs to remain out of the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

CONVERSION THERAPY

Obviously, I'm a bit 'green' to editing on Wiki. Re: Spitzer's advocating of restorative therapy; The original info. came from a NYT article: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/health/dr-robert-l-spitzer-noted-psychiatrist-apologizes-for-study-on-gay-cure.html which references the 2001 date. The article in the NYT dated May 9, 2001 announces Spitzer's delivery of the paper at the annual APA conference: https://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/09/us/study-says-gays-can-shift-sexual-orientation.html?searchResultPosition=18. The APA 2001 annual conference program listing Spitzer's scheduled symposium is available on line as a PDF (which I downloaded)...not sure how to upload that doc or exactly how to cite it (apa 154th annual meeting - American Psychiatric Associationhttps://www.psychiatry.org › am_program_2001). Finally, the original 2001 paper was not published until 2003 in the journal I cited and is available as a PDF at:https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1025647527010. I was able to download the PDF from the Wayback Machine at no cost. I'm in the middle of writing a research paper titled 'Transvestic Expression on the Gender Incongruence Continuum and the Prevalence of Concomitant Autism and Gender Incongruence' and occasionally refer to Wiki; the misinformation is astounding, to say the least, and as you said this misinformation can come from 'both sides' either trying to 'tear down' or 'promote' unsubstantiated views. While I may personally view Spitzer's paper on restorative therapy or McHugh's (Johns Hopkins) positions on sexual orientation and gender identity as nonobjective opinion, I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, when there is a loss of objectivity, particularly by leading members of the APA (i.e. Spitzer, McHugh) who advocate their personal or religious beliefs over objective positions I will make an effort to objectively 'clear the air'. Verticalhorizon1 (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

One thing that I am tripping over a bit as I try to work things through is that the 2003 paper you link to is not the same as the session described in the PDF for the 2001 conference, as the 2001 conference listing has it a study of 75 men and 25 women, while the 2003 paper represents a larger group (143 men, 57 women)... so likely the same study but at different points, different presentations of it. That just means a little extra work in being clear what we're referring to where. Alas, the next couple days are not good ones for me doing a little extra work.

To the question of how you link to a PDF, the general answer is that you don't, you link to it (or if it's in an unlinkable format, you link to the page that has the link or embedment on it.) This gives a bit more surety to things -- the PDF copy that's received direct from the APA website is much more reliable than one uploaded by JaneEditorperson420, who could have made all sorts of alterations to it on her computer before uploading it. Uploaded documents also create copyright infringement concerns.

That does sound like an interesting research paper you're working on. May you move knowledge and understanding forward! --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

CONVERSION THERAPY

Nat, I appreciate the due diligence for establishing the dates of Spitzer's paper. I did not see any references to sample size of Spitzer's paper listed in the 2001 APA annual conference syllabus you described. We do know from the PDF the annual meeting was held May 5-10 2001 and the paper was presented in Symposium 67 B on Wednesday May 9, 2001 (pg. 84 of syllabus; pg. 116 of PDF). The NYT reported the presentation of the paper on May 9, 2001. In that article, the reporter, Erica Goode, states the following: 'The researcher, Dr. Robert Spitzer, said his study was based on 45-minute telephone interviews with 143 men and 57 women who had sought help to change their sexual orientation'. That is the identical sampling group listed in the subsequent 2003 publication of the paper. (https://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/09/us/study-says-gays-can-shift-sexual-orientation.html?searchResultPosition=18). I am relying the information reported by Goode in the NYT as accurate, as the NYT is extremely diligent about fact checking. The point is, the paper was originally presented by Spitzer on May 9, 2001, but was not published publicly until 2003. The Program for the 2001 APA annual meeting PDF does not have a title listed in the properties, but could be cited as follows: 'American Psychiatric Association (2001). Program: APA 2001 Annual Meeting, Washington, DC: Author.' I believe the NYT article can be listed either as a link or by citing Goode as author and the NYT as publisher. Awful lot of work to correct a relatively minor error on Wiki, but being as factual as possible is pertinent.--Verticalhorizon1 (talk) 13:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Apology

While I posted a generic apology to people I had denigrated on my talk page, I would like to offer a personal apology to you. And again, I expect to be held to it, as I attempt to understand why it took that ANI notice to get me to reconsider behavior that, as User:HighInBC noted, I did not for a second think was ok. -- Jibal (talk) 04:46, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Lifepak

I removed the prod from Lifepak and added some references from reliable sources. Even though the article may hve been created by someone with some connection to the company, I think that the article now shows notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jackie Kannon has been accepted

Jackie Kannon, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Cabrils (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Deborah Kaplan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abington Township. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year from Wikimedians of Los Angeles!

Happy New Year from Wikimedians of Los Angeles! We're beginning to plan in-person and virtual events for 2022, and your support is needed as we re-launch the LA User Group. Please get involved! If you have ideas, or if you're interested in helping to lead the group, leave a note at Ideas for 2022 on our talk page. Join our Facebook group here. To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

--JSFarman (talk) 02:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

LA to FA 2022

LA to FA 2022

Dear NatGertler, You're invited to a zoom call, taking place on February 11, with the goal of improving the article on Los Angeles to Featured article status! I often find it daunting to approach the Big Subjects on my own—so if you, like me, want a time to sit down with fellow dedicated editors and tackle something important and complex, this is the zoom for you! I, unfortunately, have no way to transmit snacks over zoom; but I trust you to exercise good judgement and discretion in selecting snacks of your own. Hope to see you there—if you're interested, add your name here! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 00:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC) To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

Your opinion is requested

Hi. I know your page says you're retired, but I need more editors to help discern a consensus in this discussion, and I notice that you made edits as recently as last month, and have worked on the Comics Project. Cany you offer your two cents? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC):

No. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Gospel for Asia

Hello, NatGertler,

I'm contacting you because you had a discussion on the article talk page with an SPA editor who seems focused on this group. They recently removed a lot of content from this article that I restored because it looks like they were just removing all of the content concerning lawsuits involving this group although their edit summaries stated that the edits were to remove poorly sourced content.

Since I saw you participated in this talk page discussion regarding this group, I wanted to ask you if you could look over what I restored and remove any content that should have stayed unrestored. But I see from the message above that you are retired and are likely to also say "No" to this request, too. But it doesn't hurt to ask so here I am! Thanks and I hope you are enjoying your retirement from the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:03, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 21:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Message to self

Yes, I'm writing on my own talk page... to remind myself that if further "pregnant people" discussion emerges, that's not the only non-gendered term being used. Google Scholar finds slightly more hits for "pregnant individuals" in 2022 (2700) than "pregnant persons" (2480). And then there's the matter of when the use of "pregnant women" is merely the citing of an older article, and thus not reflecting current language choices. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:09, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Nat. All the points in your 18:18, 27 Dec. comment were good ones (esp. the possibility of "activists on both sides"). I would have acknowledged that there, but I felt by this time, I had said my piece for better or worse, and wanted to avoid bludgeoning. Did I miss some activism because I didn't go deep enough (i.e., the same thing I was attributing to W)? Very possibly, but I wanted to let Colin have the last word (or you, or anybody) and felt that the conversation didn't need more of my input at that point, especially because of the inclination to get into the content issue, which I felt was just not appropriate there, doubly so, because it's so contentious.

Some contentious topics can be inflammatory, and the "biological" characteristics of trans women are one of those, and it depends a lot on what the user had in mind. I don't even like the use of the word biological related to sex in any article, even in articles that have no trans-relate component, because it can be a muddy phrase, or a stand-in for any one of several different characteristics, and my impression is that sometimes the editor/author isn't quite sure what they mean by it, which can lead to problems when others interpret it differently. A phrase like biologically female can mean anything from anatomic, to physiological, to chromosomal, to endocrinological, to hormonal sex, or to some combination or all of them; in contrast, I would claim that biologically a woman (is that really what W. said? that's way worse) hardly means anything at all, and is likely to inflame without actually imparting meaning, unlike biologically female, which, as imprecise and unhelpful as it is, at least points to one of several possible related meanings. On the flip side, even accurate statements can cause a row, or resentment, or inflame, such as stating that trans women are born with male genitalia, male internal organs, male (23XY) chromosomes, and with male reproductive glands that produce male hormones, and a shorthand for that in the mind of many people is biologically male, although I would avoid that term unless it was defined in the article.

Anyway, I know better than to say any of that at the ANI discussion, which would knock it off course even more than it is already; I'm content to let it just play out as it might. Whatever the truth of what W's intentions were, I'm pretty sure getting hauled before ANI will calm their jets as far as their actions are concerned. If it does, then it will have served a useful purpose; and if it doesn't, then Colin will be proved right, and W will get blocked, and it'll show me that I'm still too much of a soft touch. We shall see. Sorry for rambling, and thanks as always for your thoughtful analyses, which help me think things through, probably even more when they challenge my position, than when they agree. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 03:18, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot; you had started out with your scholar figures (thanks for that) and as I always appreciate arguments backed by data, I wanted to offer these additional datapoints in this ngrams chart; note that pregnant women is biased by two orders of magnitude, to avoid flatlining the other terms. This represents only occurrences in books, not academic journals.

I also checked Scholar, counting the number of "pregnant individuals" and "pregnant women" in 30-year chunks starting in 1910. Needless to say, both numbers go up as time goes on, so I took the ratio, and got this:

Comparison of two expressions over 30-year intervals

Range	pregnant individuals	pregnant women	ind/women (per cent)
1910-1940	216	7410	2.91
1940-1970	416	17400	2.39
1970-2000	1650	609000	0.27
1989-2019	6500	1630000	0.40

Maybe that last uptick in percent indicates some increasing use of pregnant individuals lately, but since the latter can refer to rats, a better experiment would attempt to determine whether that introduced an imbalance over time and attempt to factor it out. Mathglot (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

The exact thing that W said was Trans men are biologically women, as well as girls. Now clearly you're aware of the complex aspects at play in the term 'biology' that makes that the problem... but then there's also the fact that, even ignoring the most direct reading of the statement (that trans men are also girls) in favor of the one that context suggests (girls are biologically women), we've got a linguistic mess. And my guess is that we will see, when W next gets in the mood, much the same edits, only with an edit summary that makes it sound like he is speaking Basic Truth.

Ngram data is interesting, but I think in this situation it's like the guy who lost his wallet on 5th street, but is looking for it on 12th because the light is better. The data is all three years old, which is fine for some things but seems wickedly ancient in terms of discussions linked to transgenderism. Looking at the Scholar data which is kept so up to date that the numbers have changed from just a few days ago, we see that the between 2018 and 2022 annual appearances of "Pregnant people" progresses 282, 399, 757, 1750, 3020... and that data for 2022 probably isn't complete yet.

That doesn't look like a linear increase, but logarithmic one. So a data set that ends in 2019 is quite stale. (And to answer the question of whether there's just that big an increase in articles about pregnancy:: the progression for "pregnant women" is 98,700, 94,800, 85,700, 71,300, 61,800, so that's a resounding no.) (Also, point of concern with Scholar: it lists 61,800 uses of PW for the 2022-2022 period, but only 45,600 "since 2022")

I'm trying to limit my editing on Wikipedia, so I doubt I'll be the one to start a general RFC on this... but I'll likely join in with data when it happens. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:22, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Adding on -- "Pregnant individuals"is seeing a similar increase:: 591, 657, 977, 1550, 3030. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:27, 28 December 2022 (UTC) Even "pregnant folks" is on the upswing, skyrocketing from 2 in 2018 to 6 in 2022! --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I was worried about the 2019 end-point, too. Thanks for accumulating that data, it will be useful if and when someone starts the general Rfc. As far as W, I'm hoping that he was sufficiently chastened by the ANI experience, and perhaps by my attempt to reach out at his UTP, that there won't be a repeat. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

A beer for you!

For this, thanks for that! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about removing your comment

I didn't notice your comment when I returned that discussion to the closed version. FYI, the IP user you were addressing does have a user account, it was just blocked indef a moment ago. MrOllie (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Except there was supposedly more than one user at that IP. As such, either the user account was one of those users and the others should also get accounts, or the user account represented multiple users, which is improper, in which case they should each get accounts. They may have logged out of the account so that multiple users were not under the same named account -- it is not against the rules for multiple users to use the same IP address (indeed, we expect it from schools and such places.) While they were wrong about the blockchain nonsense, they were not always appropriately treated either. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

CT alert

You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 19:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Hey, talk page watchers, here's stuff for you to do

I don't know if anyone's watching my talk page... but as I'm actively avoiding editing in article space at this point, here are some egregious things I'm finding. I shall keep building this list.

• Agency Rent-a-Car: the entire External Links section is spam.
• Farhad Mann -- BLP totally sourced to subjects own website, with promo-y content
• Dallas Raines not only has external links in the text, but one sales link which has since been usurped.
• The entire Personal Life section as well as the recent employment above it in Mark W. Rocha is unsourced, particularly important as the personal life includes both negative material and privacy concerns.
• Over at Talk:Mark Gerson, I point out a boastful claim about the subject that is sourced to folks the subject had just given millions of dollars to.
• Someone has been removing editing notices and adding unsourced racial information at Gang of Amazons.

• The intro to Australian Christian Lobby was some really loaded terminology, as I explain Talk:Australian_Christian_Lobby#Intro_problems here.
• Someone has decided to link two unrelated murders a world apart from each other because one was done by a female couple and one by a male couple.
• And if someone wants an ongoing project: when a WP:PAID account stopped editing Gospel for Asia, their efforts were quickly resumed by a WP:SPA account. This could use an ongoing set of eyes and a good scrub.
• There are a bunch of external links and arguably some promo at the bottom of the body of [[Demeny voting

]]

Feel free to respond or even mark within the message if you address any of these things. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2023 (UTC) Last expanded: Nat Gertler (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I confused Focus on the Family and Family Research Council

I recently made an edit to the Focus on the Family article that was in error because I inadvertently confused Focus on the Family with Family Research Council. You undid my edit, probably because you noticed my error. This is to thank you for that. P8Wm7G42 (talk) 02:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

2023 Tel Aviv car-ramming

I've been asking for an article update for months and the contributors have left it at that for updates. The investigations and the authorities classified it as a terrorist attack. A head of state does not receive the body of a person involved in a road accident at the airport but does so if this is the victim of a terrorist attack. and this happened. President Mattarella received Parisi's body at the Rome airport.--Peter39c (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Peter39c: Heads of state receive bodies where they think it will be politically useful to do so. But none of that has to with the fact that you've taken a situation where the victims were British and Italians and put them on a template dedicated to attacks on Israelis. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

EWG

Can you point out on the Talk page where there is a consensus that it's undue weight to mention that EWG publishes material about PFAS? I only see a section where two editors are disagreeing about it and KOA keeps reverting it. Steven Walling • talk 04:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Consensus has not been found for inclusion. Under the WP:BRD cycle, the material should not be reinserted until consensus arises... and given the lack of third parties in the material repeatedly reinserted, we are lacking indication of its import. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, we can discuss on Talk. I asked because the edit summaries made it sound like there was already a consensus that it's undue weight, and I don't see that anywhere. Steven Walling • talk 04:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Technical test

Hello, NatGertler. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Technical test, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

WT:AfD

I appreciate the additional note, as I had indeed misread your comment. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

NPOV and Biography - Kalki Bhagavan

Hi Nat

i have responded with a detailed point by point response on the Biography of living persons page - can you please help me take this forward? I believe my claims have a solid chain of arguments and am requesting your help. Any edits made are shot down without a fair hearing - hence had raised these concerns.

thanks Hibiscus192255 (talk) 08:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

It really does look like the page has real problems... but I really don't have the time and energy to wrangle it at the moment. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Can you tell me either how I can help or post the same on the BLP noticeboard. I think your opinion would carry weight.

One thing I could do is propose an edit which you can review, and if you like it, post it. Hibiscus192255 (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Kalki Bhagawan @NatGertlerI I have made one edit there, which keeps all information but discharges it and makes it more fit to be an encyclopedia article. Please take a look. Hibiscus192255 (talk) 01:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

And before you can review them they are already undone :S.

If possible please read my version before the edits were undone, my version omits no sourced material, keeps all information but I think is way more Wikipediic / encyclopedic than what Is live right now. If you deem it an improvement, please let me know and would be great help make the necessary corrections (I have tried to minimize some of the effort involved) Hibiscus192255 (talk) 02:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Actually looks like my version was accepted but the moderator wants me to establish consensus. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kalki_Bhagawan&stableid=1174685152

This might be the crispest use of your time if/as you see this has merit and would like to help in minimal time / effort. Thanks in any case for the time spent on this case. Hibiscus192255 (talk) 02:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested 2 specific topics for your consideration on the talk page to help decide. Not asking one way or other, but if you could share your opinion on the page it would help move this faster sooner in either case. Thanks again. Hibiscus192255 (talk) 13:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The sort of things you are asking would require me to spend a degree of energy reviewing the article and its sources that I do not have at the moment. This might be a good time to look to Wikipedia:Third opinion. Peace to you! -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

sounds good, thanks a lot @NatGertler Hibiscus192255 (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Why did you retreive my edit at the Vyond article

Whats wrong with adding flashthemes? Its a legal GoAnimate revival site and itsthe part of the article, Why did You Retrevie it? Кингзјевонњикимен (talk) 06:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Кингзјевонњикимен: Wikipedia is built around information from reliable, third-party sources, so that we have a solid sense of 1) what is true and 2) what is important. The information you added included no reference at all to tell us any of that. The closest it had to a reference was a link to the flashthemes website. Putting an external link in the body of the article is not something we generally do (see Wikipedia:External links) The closest thing I can find on the website itself regarding any link to Vyond is the disclaimer "GoAnimate, or Vyond is not responsible for and does not endorse the content hosted on this Site", a statement that does not indicate any relationship to that company. Even if a relationship was indicated on the site, we would be cautious about relying on that for truth, as anyone can say anything about themselves on their own site. And even if we took the statement as true, we would want outside indications that it was important. If there were newspaper or magazine articles about the relationship between the flashthemes site and GoAnimate, then that might indicate that the material was worth including in our article. So if you want to add material about flashthemes to the Vyond article, I suggest you look for independent and reliable sources talking about flashthemes and its relationship to Vyond. If you want a better understanding of what we think of as appropriate sources, see Wikipedia:Verifiability. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 09:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Galerie Gmurzynska

Dear Nat May I ask why you continue to suppress fully-sourced material on the 'Galerie Gmurzynska' page, citing WP:BLPCRIME concerns? That material is comprehensively referenced with highly reputable sources such as the New York Times, New Left Review, etc. It may be uncomfortable for the owners of that institution, but those events are very much a part of its history and should not be suppressed unless Wikipedia is intended to become an advertising/commercial space? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vantongern959 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

New discussion

There is a discussion here which may be of interest to you. Wes sideman (talk) 13:53, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I am curious why I was tapped on this one, about an article I appear never to have edited nor entered comment on the talk page. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)