User talk:NatGertler

Edit warring

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)

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)

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)

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)

It appears that you are changing information without proper facts. Johnramias (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

January 2025

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)

@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)

Once again, you are changing information that is Correct. Please STOP or you can be removed. Johnramias (talk) 05:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

LA Wildfire edit-a-thons January 26 and February 2

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)

Wikipedia:Not gonna donate

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

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

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)

(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)

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)

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)

Question RE: Westboro Baptist Church

What exactly do you propose is meant by "many other primitive baptist churches"? I get everything needing being to be WP:RS compliant, but I also get WP:IAR, and in this case I don't see the value in normalizing these freaks (and that's exactly what they are: freaks) on account of technicality. Literally nobody likes them, not even Steven Anderson who is a freak himself, and the source pretty much supports that. Also, if you wanted to change it to the exact text on technicality, so be it, but I don't see any reason to exclude the denouncement aside from the major conventions altogether. PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

What I propose is meant by it is what it says -- some non-trivial number of churches following the Primitive Baptist tradition. "Many" is non-specific, but it's ridiculous to assume it means "most"; if 1000 people accuse me of stealing their yogurt, that's many people, even if it's a fraction of one percent of one percent of one percent of even Americans. It's a POV term that we should be careful in wielding. Additionally, you were saying "most other Independent Baptist churches", which seems to carry the implication that Westboro is an Independent Baptist church, which they do not appear to be. With a capital I, that is a specific group.

Using the exact text runs into both the POV problem of "many" and the plagiarism problem.

There may well be times to WP:IAR, but I would say that making a negative, unsourced claim about any article subject, even one as disreputable as Westboro, is never such a time. Beyond that, The Gospel Coalition, a group of churches of which WBC is not a member, may not be a good source to go to for this. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 07:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Clarification Regarding Pronoun Edits on Revord's Page

I recently updated the pronouns on Revord's page to reflect their identity. However, I noticed that my edits were reverted with the note, "See extensive discussion on the Talk page over the pronoun situation." Based on my review of the discussion it appears that there was a consensus that Revord uses they/them pronouns. Could you clarify why the edits were undone? Andrew01938 (talk) 03:25, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Please take this matter to the talk page. There is extensive discussion of such things as Revord continues to use she/her pronouns on official sites, that Revord has purposely separated the identity being used for social media efforts, and that we have a messy sourcing situation on this. Consensus is not a vote. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:42, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Just so you know

You can wikilink meh. ;) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:29, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Flaa discussing pronunciation with Jennifer Aniston at 8:07. I watched this video, now I'm a bit of a fan. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:03, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

This is definitely one of those topics where I'm not fascinated by the topic. But Wikipedia is not just for my amusement (but it should be.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

No, the process/off-wiki aspects is what makes this interesting. However, I shall now go to the Miley Cyrus article, and add to the Personal life section that according to Cyrus, she has the bladder of a 12-year old volleyball-player, citing this video. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

As long as she doesn't name the specific volleyball player, that should not be a BLP concern. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm guessing she keeps it as a conversation piece. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of Charles Read (historian) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Charles Read (historian) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Read (historian) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

nhinchey (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Kjersti Flaa

Hi Nat. Hope you're well. As a courtesy, I want to explain why I stopped responding directly. Editing's a lot more fun when it's a topic I enjoy, so I won't visit Flaa's article again until after AfD closes. My next post will be to the admin noticeboard.

I was not watching the page until you made this reply to me, which I saw as an aggressive response to a good-faith attempt to improve content (particularly your use of "claim").

I wrote this summary explaining why the NYT piece was important to the controversy (it started it). Every statement was supported by a quote sitting alongside it. Your response completely ignored my (accurate) source analysis to contest a single phrase that I got wrong. This didn't feel "productive" so much as "obstructive"—more likely to shut down consensus-gathering than to develop it. If this happens, one wonders... is shutting down consensus-gathering is the point?

I stopped responding directly to refocus us on the content and stand by the decision. If you respond to this, please ping me. Thank you — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 23:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

@ImaginesTigers: The reason that we caution against the word "claim" in article text is that it can be seen as casting doubt on the veracity of the statement. Since I was asserting that the statement was indeed not true, the word was well suited. I had tried explaining the situation in fuller form, you stated that you did not understand what I said, so I summarized for clarity. Summarizing and bluntness go hand in hand.

This response was to you stating that you had not claimed something that you had quite specifically claimed. I don't get gaslighted that easily.

You say here you wanted to refocus on the content, but instead your edits called me out, even in the edit summary. (Someone announcing that they won't respond is often seen as a way of trying to keep people from responding to their statements. It doesn't tend to have that effect, however.)

I am an unpaid volunteer editor on this knowledge project. I am free to pick and choose my efforts, and it is not some requirement of me that I respond to every question you put forth. And given that you have been asking me to read the minds of others ("why did Flaa contact them? Why would they defend their reporting? Why would they publish her statement?"), some of those questions are quite ignorable. You asking a question does not put an onus on me. You are not my boss.

Now you're telling me it's a "courtesy" that you are here threatening me with the "admin noticeboard", apparently for the crime of pointing out when you've said something false, which is not a violation of any standard here that I know of and is quite handy when one is trying to steer an article toward accuracy. Spare me that "courtesy" in the future. Except for the posting of required notices, consider yourself banned from this talk page. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:56, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Re Userpage retirement notice and addenda

I really appreciate your frequent and even-keeled contributions and feedback, especially around WP:BLPN. Without any particular commitment, would you possibly maybe consider just un-retiring yourself on your userpage (because you're so good at it, I suspect it's hard to keep away)? I sometimes glance there for an update before/during/after working together or stepping on your toes. You seem plenty "here" to me, and I'm thankful. Cheers, friend. JFHJr (㊟) 00:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate that... but Wikipedia is something that I do often when I should be doing other things, when I'm purposely pushing back the tricky stuff that my life calls for. So I still have a reduction, at least, as a goal.

Keep up the good effort! -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:20, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I procrastinate, too. This has always been a major procrastination activity for me, too. I spent a decade with this cut out. More recently, I think I think I've found its place, its metes and bounds in my life. Wishing you a happy journey. And a fist bump. JFHJr (㊟) 00:38, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

And sorry about the SPI nonsense I just found out I did. I figured I'd get an edit notice if there was already a case filed. I didn't manually check first. Thanks for your help and attention there. JFHJr (㊟) 04:26, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

All very understandable; the page is not well set up for duplicates. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:28, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out. I agree email was probably best for the observation. I think the most likely cause is an omission during an interview or questionnaire connected to the publication. Your comments as to motivations are all plausible and not necessarily mutually exclusive. It's telling that we don't have sources to support whatever case it may be. All we can do is keep an eye on changes. Thanks again for the heads up! JFHJr (㊟) 19:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this. I'd kept the namespace watched since last time. Glad you did too, and got to it (while I was disconnected and covered in dirt). You're the best. JFHJr (㊟) 21:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Messed with your comment a little

here, something I have repeatedly complained to CapnZapp about when they did it with my comments, but that's different, innit? Anyway, slap me if I messed up meaning/intent or something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you a million for helping Hans-Dieter Sues find their way in Wikipedia's maze of policies and guidelines. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Rollback at Raegan Revord

Just for context and clarity, I didn't mean to rollback your version [1], hence why I immediately reverted myself [2]. I actually meant to restore the undisputed parts, as I later did [3], but I pressed the button by mistake; sorry for that, no edit-war meant - as the discussion is still going on. — Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 05:43, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I have noticed that after that revert, you did de-revert. My mention of edit-warring on your talk page was in regard to your re-reversion of 14:15, 30 April 2025. But thank you for the immediate rereversion you mentioned above. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)