|
|
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)
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)~
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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))
FYI Tea Party Protest header 'Teabagging' edited to 'Origins'. No consensus.-- Happysomeone ( talk) 03:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
For tirelessly removing POV text. Dr.enh ( talk) 23:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC) |
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)
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)
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)
Did I ever tell you how much I enjoyed The Factor? DS ( talk) 22:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your correction. I should have noted it was moved, not pulled. J. Myrle Fuller ( talk) 19:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
Materialscientist ( talk) 12:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
Is there anything worth keeping or should it just be removed per WP:Forum? CTJF83 chat 06:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Did I miss something: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Stuathain&curid=26367990&diff=346817689&oldid=346817686 ?-- Supertouch ( talk) 04:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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))
Yes. I simply made a stupid mistake. Pleas help me delete User NCCU page. Thanks! Tsungyenlee ( converse) 07:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
The article Lauren Ashley has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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?
Hey Nat;
Do you want to exchange email addresses or skype or messenger?
Doug-- DCX ( talk) 03:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
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.
Thanks, Doug-- DCX ( talk) 22:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Good work! I like what I see!--
Screwball23
talk 03:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
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) |
The article Haavara agreement currently contains a link to Edwin Black's book:
The author and date of the book were not clear from the link, so I spelled it out:
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)
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.
(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)
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)
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)
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 for a summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Dear Nat,
A million thank-yous for moving Paul Barry back to songwriter! Ladyleeloo ( talk) 23:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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 have added references to the article. Thanks for your help. Kwiki6 ( talk) 03:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Subverted ( talk • contribs) 04:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
It appears I was mistaken then, thanks for telling me. Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 20:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)