User talk:NatGertler

This is NatGertler's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 3 months

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Public domain. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. You continue to add material not related to the public domain to the article, and continue to refuse to engage in Talk. Please stop. Wuerzele (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This Bio is full of dead external links. I cleaned but you have restored them why? I did something wrong by removing dead external links ? Also some unreleated to the topic ? sorry 2603:9001:2600:7C59:9D03:6447:80C5:5C0E (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you made a very common and understandable mistake by deleting the dead links and material sourced to them. As it explains at WP:DEADLINK, even a dead link is useful, because it can serve as a pointer to where that page is save in an archive. Also, something does not need to be online to be considered an appropriate Wikipedia reference, and when you delete a link to a newspaper's website, for example, you're also erasing the information that the material was in the print version of the newspaper as well. You may want to go to that link that I just posted, it gives some guides on how to deal properly with dead links. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Attempted assassination of Donald Trump (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 15:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a heads-up, I won't post a reply over at Raegan Revord simply because I believe you shouldn't need to reply just to agree. Only if I would object I would need to pipe up. Silence means consensus. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that if someone objects, then you should pipe up agreement, as then it becomes an issue of visible consensus, as it's not unanimity. I'll probably give it just another day before requesting deletion (although it strikes me that due to this very thread, the Talk pages may technically require merging even if the articles do not. Hmmm.) Also, be aware that the closure may be challenged - as I discuss at the closer's talk page, it was a problematic closure statement. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you correctly, I should say "I don't want the talk history of the page during its draft phase deleted"? I could add I'm cool with how User:PrimeHunter resolved the issue you brought up. CapnZapp (talk) 13:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Things seem fine... at least in that section. (It does seem to me that the FINALLY!! section you added to the talk page is not meant to discuss editing in any way, but is mere gloating, and is inappropriate for a talk page.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Scott Ritter. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Nat Gertler Luganchanka (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:3RRNO and cease trying to shove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious matter in a BLP. See also Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Scott_Ritter_Biography_-_Noncompliance_with_MOS_and_BLP_Guidelines. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For those looking on: the posting editor was responding to a similar warning on his page... he was then blocked for the editing warring. Unsurprisingly, no such step was taken against me. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. I wanted to let you know that I moved one part of our RfC discussion on the talkpage from the comments to the bottom of the discussion. Since it's us discussing, which is great. I didn't want to make it hard to follow or follow up, so this is my heads up note. I appreciate and look forward to your feedback on the talkpage RfC. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 03:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you edited my revert on Jake Turx. I was just adding the date of birth it said in the Wikidata item. Oh well. Cheers, Yeshivish613 (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yeshivish613: Yes, but Wikidata was using as source the Wikipedia page on him, presumably an earlier version where it had had an unsourced or improperly sourced date of birth. As you can see at WP:DOB, for birthdates or living people, we require not just reliable sourcing but even higher requirements than most such sourcing, as date of birth is not always a public matter and can be used in damaging ways. Anyway, I've now deleted the information from Wikidata as well. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, is there any reason you removed my comment [1]? CapnZapp (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not only was it not intentional, looking at it now I cannot reverse engineer how it happened. I restore the comment. My apologies for that. — Nat Gertler (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming edit-a-thons focused on the Los Angeles Wildfires

In response to the 2025 Los Angeles wildfires, WikiLA has organized three edit-a-thons to create or improve articles about the historically, culturally, and/or architecturally significant structures that were destroyed or damaged during the fires, and the organizations and entities that stepped up to help. Please join us. Sunday, January 26, at the Ebell of Los Angeles in mid-Wilshire from 11:00–4:00. (Details and sign up here.) Sunday, January 26, at the Live Oak Library in Arcadia from 11:00–4:00. (Details and sign up here.) Sunday, February 2, at the Hammer Museum in Westwood from 11:00–4:00. (Details and sign up here.) To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

JSFarman (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Nat. I only just discovered this essay. Thank you for creating it! Bishonen | tålk 08:48, 18 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]

If you think it's of use, I'm glad to have! -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:09, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, content not what I guessed by that title. Nat, I had the time to think "Oh well, but I was hoping for something a little more eloquent" before I saw your post at ANI. Is there a curse or something? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Take the pause to realize that you weren't saying that my essay was not eloquent.) Yes, the Revord article is a lightning rod for things going wrong. I'm glad I checked the closer, but I expect that someone will complain again about it having been reopened. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Never! Fwiw, you have my support. On the plus side, the pronoun thing seems to have died off. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And we have a no consensus keep. Good enough for me, it indicates the closer read the !votes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:07, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]