User talk:NatGertler

FOR EARLIER POSTS see Archive 1, Archive 2

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello NatGertler! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Holiday Cheer

		Holiday Cheer
		Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS

Editing glitch

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

Happy Holidays!

I hope you have a great holiday!

Quackers Talk Contributions

01:38, December 1, 2015 (UTC)

Peter Buschang Deletion

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

About Home's sequel

This may be a true sequel

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, NatGertler. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The Happiness Hack

Mr. Gertler:

I am writing in regards to the proposed deletion (and eventual deletion of) The Happiness Hack Wikipedia page, The Happiness Hack is a book by Ellen Petry Leanse. I had initially seen the proposed deletion and meant to remove the tag and address the concern with the page but got sidetracked by the holiday. Though I've had a Wikipedia account for some time I am fairly new to consistent active editing on Wikipedia. I'd like the opportunity to fix the concern and restore The Happiness Hack page. The concern you stated was: Unsourced article with no claim of notabilityItalic text. I have the material to include that would be satisfactory in resolving the concern. How should I best proceed? With you being a seasoned and notable Wikipedia editor, your assistance and guidance would be most welcomed and priceless. Most appreciated in advance!

--DAyatollah (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)DAyatollahDAyatollah (talk)

For instructions on getting a page deleted by proposed deletion undeleted, see WP:REFUND. Having said that, be aware that there is likely to be concerned raised about any page about a book posted within a month of that book's release, as such articles tend to be promotional in intent or nature, as a month is generally not enough time for a book's true place in the world to have been established.

As a side note, when adding a new section to a talk page, it's best to add it to the bottom of the page rather than at the top. Talk pages are generally expected to be in historic order. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Nat:

Most appreciate the swift reply as well as the insight and side note on the WP: REFUND process and talk page purpose and best practices! The Happiness Hack was a book I had recently read and after deeper research on its subject matter and the author felt both should be included on Wikipedia. Additionally, I want to become more active on Wikipedia and felt these inclusions were ideal to start with. Will proceed accordingly and follow you closely to learn as I strive to become a better Wikipedia contributor and editor. A pleasure to meet and connect!

--DAyatollah (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)DAyatollahDAyatollah (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad that you found a book that is of value to you. If you have any other questions about Wikipedia practices, let me know. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Most appreciated! And yes sir, I absolutely will! Bless you, for your time. Hope you had a happy holiday and have a great new year! --DAyatollah (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)DAyatollahDAyatollah (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Ellen Petry Leanse

Got your message. I'm pulling info as I locate all I can find on the author and then including the sources. I saw the Wikipedia notification on a promotional concern. Didn't do purposely, and trying to figure out how to correct. Not sure which language on how I wrote it triggered it. Any guidance?

--DAyatollah (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)DAyatollahDAyatollah (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm the person who raised the promotional language flag on the article. Let's look at the first paragraph as you just wrote it:

Ellen Petry Leanse (born Ellen Petry August 12, 1958) is an American author, business leader, coach, educator, entrepreneur, and tech pioneer. Leanse has spent 35 years working with leaders at Apple, Google, Facebook, as an entrepreneur, and with dozens of startups. She’s a widely-followed writer on topics of workplace dynamics and a Stanford instructor. Her work has spanned entrepreneurship, corporate leadership, investing, and strategy consulting. Combining decades of life lessons with insights from neuroscience, design, and mindfulness practice, Ellen guides companies and individuals to “think different” about life satisfaction, relationships, impact, and the paths that build them.

"Leader", "pioneer", "widely-followed", and the claims about her methodology are all promotional in tone. This looks like an ad, not a neutral encyclopedia article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I see, it's the inferencing tone, I'll revise accordingly. Is there a way this type of language could be substantiated with sources? Or is it simply a point of view and speculative?

DAyatollah (talk) 21:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)DAyatollahDAyatollah (talk) 21:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I revised the followoing, removing the words "leader", "widely-follwed", and changing "tech pioneer" to "online community pioneer", whhich I think the source info cleary presents, let me know if you still think I should just revise that further:

Ellen Petry Leanse (born Ellen Petry August 12, 1958) is an American author, business person, coach, educator, entrepreneur, and online community pioneer. Leanse has spent 35 years working with leaders at Apple, Google, Facebook, as an entrepreneur, and with dozens of startups. She’s a writer on topics of workplace dynamics and a Stanford instructor. Her work has spanned entrepreneurship, corporate leadership, investing, and strategy consulting. Combining decades of life lessons with insights from neuroscience, design, and mindfulness practice, Ellen guides companies and individuals to “think different” about life satisfaction, relationships, impact, and the paths that build them.

--DAyatollah (talk) 22:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)DAyatollahDAyatollah (talk) 22:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Donald Watkins

Thanks for taking on the clean up. I think the article creator is stepping back from this, and it's probably best if I do too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: I'm not going to have the time to do a full clean-up anytime soon, particularly because the key source being used is not online. I'm just pecking away at the edges. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

You recently placed a prod

You recently placed a prod on Tnuza Jamal Hassan with the explanation: "Doesn't seem to qualify for an article at this point, under WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME - an otherwise not notable individual not yet convicted of a crime."

Okay, but doesn't BLP1E list 3 criteria, all 3 of which should be met, before an individual is a genuine instance of a BLP1E that merits a merge or deletion?

The second of those criteria is: "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article."

There is a good reason why wikipedia contributors don't try to create a standalone article on every murderer. Tragically, most murders are very similar, with drug deals gone bad, or family fights that escalated in households where loaded firearms were available, being two of the most common patterns. We adequately cover these very similar murders, and very similar murderers, in our articles on murder, on domestic violence, on firearms.

Unlike murder, domestic terrorism, within the USA is very rare. If Hassan was merely a vandal, trying to trigger a fire alarm so her exam would be cancelled, her crimes probably wouldn't even make the campus newspaper.

But, even though no one was actually injured, she seems to have confessed to murderous intent. She wanted to set the campus ablaze. Her charge sheet says she told investigators the USA was lucky she didn't know how to build a bomb, or she would have set off bombs, on campus.

Hassan appears to have confessed to crimes that qualify calling her a failed terrorist, not a simple garden variety vandal.

So, with regard to point number 2, I think the chance that she "is likely to remain, a low-profile individual" is about zero.

You included the phrase "at this point" in your justification for deletion. Okay, at what point would you agree she merits a standalone article?

I work on topics related to terrorism and counter-terrorism. I have not come across any cases like hers. Do you know the phrase "textbook case" -- often used figuratively. But, in her case, it will be literally true, when a year or two from now, she is profiled in a textbook covering the topic of domestic terrorism.

Will that be the point you need to see, before you would agree she merits a standalone article? Geo Swan (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Even if she is convicted (which would get past the WP:BLPCRIME concerns on discussing her at all), what you've got is a teenager who was unnotable before the event and will likely only be notable in discussing the event (even if the event does land in textbooks), in which case we would expect to have an article about the event, mentioning relevant information about her within that context (and possibly using her name as a redirect to that article.) If her life proves to be of greater focus than the event, that might be an argument for an article on her. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• What we agree on is that Hassan was NN prior to getting caught.

You write she will "...likely only be notable in discussing the event..." Please think about this. What is the event? Her lighting a bunch of fires? Vandals commit petty acts of vandalism, all the time. If her "event" is merely setting fires, she is indistinguishable from all those petty vandals who don't end up in the news. If it were really just the "event" that merits coverage, why wouldn't it be adequately covered in an article on Arson on college campuses causing less than $10,000 damage? Why, because it is not the event that merits coverage.

What distinguishes Hassan is her apparent confession of murderous intent, her apparent confession to strike terror in the hearts of her neighbors in the American heartland.

What takes a kid, growing up in the American heartland, and triggers them to want to terrorize their neighbors? Is her confession, and the opinion of experts on terrorism, from the field of security, and the field of mental health, best covered in an article on the event of an attempt to start a bunch of fires on a University campus? Rhetorical question. Of course it isn't.

Journalist Robert Fisk, who provided excellent coverage over a long career, had American right-wing commentators turn his name into a verb, "Robert_Fisk#Fisking", due to one instance where they claimed he was too credulous. Your comment may be suggesting that only if her name was similarly turned into a verb, "Hassaned", would you agree to having a standalone article. Is this really what you meant? Geo Swan (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Wow. Amazing. I said nothing about anyone's name turning into a verb, yet suddenly there is that straw man, erected for you to knock down. You act like it's something that unusual for an American to want to strike terror into the hearts of their neighbors... and yet, we don't have articles on every gay-basher, lyncher, and cross-burner in this country's history cluttering up these pages. But anyway, predictions of the future aside, what we've got there is an article that utterly disappears if we follow the suggestions of WP:BLPCRIME. Whether there should be an article in the future can be decided based on future developments. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• I am going to ask you to reflect on the wisdom of WP:VER. You and I are just wikipedia contributors. What we cover here is supposed to be based on the judgement of reliable authoritative sources, as reflected in their published work. If you and I were newspaper editors, and one of our writers wanted to write about young Ms Hassan, we would have the authority to yank our writer's article, or make them do a rewrite, based on arguments like that you used above, that (paraphrasing) she was really only a crazy mixed up kid, and her apparent resemblance to a terrorist could safely be ignored.

I know I am not a journalist, or a newspaper editor. I know I should not let my own personal opinion of Ms Hassan's case influence my work on her coverage.

But, excuse me, when you write about how Hassan is (paraphrasing) just a mixed up kid, whose act of vandalism didn't cause serious damage, so doesn't merit significant coverage here -- aren't you putting your personal judgement in front of the professional judgement of the professional editors who already decided these issues DO merit coverage? Geo Swan (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, you don't even give me enough time to complete my response to your previous inventing of a stance for me that you're here doing it again. I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish here through your badgering, but I'm asking you to stop, and suggesting that you go read WP:NOTNEWS if you have not read it before. If you can show me a respectable encyclopedia that has an article on her, that would be different, but the goal of a newspaper and the goal of an encyclopedia are different. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• For all you and I know, if you kept your cool, and confined yourself to discussion, you may have convinced me... or I may have convinced you.

We are all responsible for what we do and write here. I do not think attempts at civil discussion should be described a "badgering".

I am sorry, but I think removing the prod you yourself placed, and escalating your concern to AFD, is not compliant with the spirit of WP:PROD. Geo Swan (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I too am sorry that you are unaware of the "spirit of WP:PROD." PROD is for uncontroversial deletions; the very fact that you posted here to argue against the prod is the proof that prod is not the right system for handling this deletion. I really have no interest in having an extended talk page discussion with you where you make up a stance for me just so I can say "hey, I didn't say that", and would rather just cut to the chase of discussing it where other people will see it and weigh in. You may feel free to take your further comments about the possible deletion of the article there. If you feel the need to go on some further discussion of how I was not "cool" enough to subject myself to your treatment, of course you shouldn't post that there... but then, you probably shouldn't post that anywhere. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Could you please be more careful...

With regard to these 8 edits, I am going to offer you the same advice I offer any nominator who then makes a bunch of edits to an article they nominated for deletion, before the AFD closes...

I know you know that for the wikipedia to be the success all its genuine proponents want it to be all contributors should do their best to be civil and collegial with one another. We ask contributors to Assume good faith. I suggest a corollary of AGF is that if we can avoid behaviour that strains the ability of our fellow contributors to assume good faith, we should avoid that behaviour. I, for one, want to reserve my ability to assume good faith for unavoidable misunderstandings, like the misunderstandings of people from different culutres, orwhen one person learned English as a second language.

Editing an article you have nominated for deletion? Policy does allow this. But people do expect nominators to have a very good reason for doing so. Removing obvious libel? No one questions the nominator, or anyone else, making those kinds of edits.

But when you nominate an article for deletion haven't you gone on record that you don't think the article measures up to our inclusion standards -- and it can't be improved to the point where it meets our inclusion standards.

Nominators editing articles they nominated for deletion, before the AFD is over -- it is pretty rare. In some of the other instances where I have seen it happen, the nominator was pretty transparently trying to sabotage the good faith efforts of those in the keep camp to address the concerns raised during the AFD that they recognized as genuine. Some of thse guys even assert, "but the article merited deletion, when I nominated it."

The edit summaries you used, and the edits you made, seem to be intended to improve the article. Nevertheless, I think they were ill-advised.

My general advice to nominators, about editing articles they nominated for deletion:

1. If the AFD closes as keep or no consensus, feel free to make good faith improvements;
2. If you change your mind, and decide the article merits keeping, during the AFD, then clearly signal your change of heart, at the AFD, before you make any improvements;
3. If you now think the article should have a name-change, and possibly a change of focus -- a position several people have taken -- that is not a delete. You should own up to changing your mind, at the AFD, prior to making any changes.
4. So long as you remain firmly in the delete camp, give those in the keep cam a free hand, and refrain from making improvements.

There are AFDs where only a few people, or only a single person, has voiced a keep opinion. I've seen those people work hard to improve the article, during the AFD period, only to have their efforts impeded by those in the delete camp making improvements. Even if deletion seems inevitable to most people, it doesn't seem inevitable to those working hard to make improvements.

So, even if policy allows you to keep improving an article, even if you are firmly on the record that it can't be improved, I think there are strong reasons for nominators to keep their hands off. I recognize that almost everyone I disagree with is nevertheless operating from a position of good faith.

I suggest to you that, if and when an AFD discusision closes as delete, it is best for the project if those who voiced a keep have no grounds to wonder "if only those who voiced a delete had left me with a free hand to make my improvements, I would have been able to improve it to the point it ended up being kept." I suggest it shouldn't even matter if deletion seems inevitable to practically everyone, there is no lasting value to the project for those in the delete camp to "improve" articles they are on record should be deleted.

As I said above, we all have an obligation to try to assume good faith, but a corollary to AGF is to not unnecessarily strain our fellow collaborator's ability to AGF. Geo Swan (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Wow.

If you feel hurt by the fact that I corrected false information that you were attempting to spread about a living person, to stem the damage that you have already done with your edits, that resides with you, not me. Not spreading such damaging claims, even during the AFD period, is more important than protecting your feelings. Additionally, the AFD should be based on actual facts about the matter, rather than falsehoods that are in the article at the point that the AFD starts.

Given that you use access to my talk page to lecture me about Wikipedia, and given that you seem to have a very poor understanding of its standards and practices, I hereby tell you to stay the hell off of this page. Frankly, I thought that you'd already gotten that understanding when you said "Since their last comment was basically a Foxtrot Oscar, I am putting my last reply here", but apparently it needs to be made more explicit. If you have arguments with the individual edits to the article, bringing it up on the article's talk page. If you just want to harangue me based on your misunderstandings, feel free to find a better hobby.

If you want to find someone who should be "more careful", review the edits that you are complaining about and realize that they arise from you having not been "careful", at best. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Your revert at Bob Menendez

You reverted my edit to Bob Menendez without any explanation. My rationale is that he has won 2 elections on his own since then and so his appointer no longer matters (that information is contained in the body of the article). Effectively, the people have "appointed" him now that he has won at least one election (see Jeffrey Chiesa and Mo Cowan for contrasts). I'm asking you to revert your edit. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 02:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

While the people have maintained him as an incumbent, he nonetheless achieved the post through appointment. That information is of value, was first put in the infobox by January of 2007, and when others have tried to delete it, it's been reinstalled. There is no discussion on the talk page about removing it. So I will not undo the edit; I encourage you to start a discussion on the talk page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Page sourcing and improvement at Bryan Earl Kreutz

Thanks for your patience in letting me do some reference cleanup, but most importantly the pointing out of the most notable role of the actor on the film release date for Bryan Earl Kreutz. I also had a nice thorough bit of assistance from :@Gronk Oz: to filling in the small gaps of needed reference clean up. If you think I should step back as the creator of the article and give another perspective i'm happy to do so, but again i'm grateful for your guidance. --Techform (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

templates removal

Hi, NatGertler! Thank you for your attention to a new article about Corys TESS company! :) I've fixed the issues. If you're satisfied with the current article's look please help me to remove all the templates above. If you would like to disscuss something I am open for it! :) Thanks behorehand! Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

"if it ain't broke..."

"...don't fix it." See WP:NOTBROKEN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I suggest that you see WP:NOTBROKEN, @Beyond My Ken: because it's not talking about the case that you see on Jingle Bells. That's about removing a redirect by piping. What you've been doing is repeatedly inserting a pipe to a redirect, so that it goes back to an article with the name of the display text. That's inefficient on various fronts including making the page source look more complex than needed. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

No, I think you need to read it again. It's basically saying that there are advantages to such pipes, so don't fix them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

No, it's basically saying that there are advantages to using redirects rather than piping. You, @Beyond My Ken:, are trying to edit-war in a version that uses both a pipe and a redirect rather than a direct link. I'm not sure whether you misunderstood WP:NOTBROKEN or Jingle Bells, but the thing that you're trying to edit war in serves no purpose. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

SMILE!! 3 March 2018

Hello NatGertler, Me-123567-Me has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

David Ogden Stiers

Info has three references. No need to undo revisions. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

All of which is covered on the talk page, where standing consensus is that it's problematic to include. Please reach new consensus before re-adding. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day LA, March 31

Wikipedia Day LA 2018

Please join us from 10:00 am - 5:00 pm on Saturday, March 31st for Wikipedia Day LA 2018 at the Ace Hotel in downtown Los Angeles. There will be speakers, panel discussions, a presentation on Wikidata, flash sessions, and a discussion about the formation of an LA User Group. There could be dramatic readings of LA-related talk pages, and there will be truly excellent cake. Please RSVP on the event page if you're thinking of joining us. We hope to see you there! JSFarman (talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC) Join our Facebook group here, and follow us on Twitter . To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

Christmas Controversies

Nat, Really. Just go look again. Do you really think I was trying to get others to harass an editor on his talk page? No way. Do you approve of his greeting when someone tries to leave a message on his talk page? That's what I was trying to assess from the editing community. But ignore me here if you don't want to answer. I was only looking to hear from those willing to do so. Evensteven (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, I really think you were trying to round up people on an article page to go to a user's talk page to generate complaints. Otherwise, you're just an experienced editor who is mysteriously unaware that an article talk page is a place to discuss the editing of an article, rather than the actions of a user at some other page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok. Sorry to hear that. No lack of awareness there. But how people edit is of concern to every editing community. Where would you have taken it? ANI immediately? That seemed a bit of an extreme reaction to me.

My impression after two years is that the editing environment has become corrosive enough that the worst is generally assumed, rather than good faith. In any case, I'm not happy to have introduced an uproar, whatever the cause. And I am happy to go away. Sorry if I offended you. Evensteven (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC)