User talk:NatGertler

I am mostly retired from article editing on Wikipedia, retaining my account primarily for taking care of promises I had made to help set up a small number of articles, to suggest reversion of damaging changes on pages I monitor, and to be able to request edits on pages related to myself and my work. Nonetheless, if you do need to contact me on something specific, a message on this talk page will still trigger an email and thus likely be seen.

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.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7: 100 days

LA Meetup: February 17, 2024[edit]

Edit-a-thon and Wikipedia Day Celebration

Please join Wikimedians of Los Angeles on Saturday, February 17 from 12:00 to 4:00 pm for a Los Angeles and West Hollywood-themed edit-a-thon at the West Hollywood Library. (For the details and to sign up, see Wikipedia:Meetup/Los Angeles/February 2024.)

We'll also be celebrating Wikipedia's 23rd birthday/Wikipedia Day. (There will be cake!)

We hope to see you there! JSFarman via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Join our Facebook group here.
To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

CS1 error on Raise the Titanic![edit]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Raise the Titanic!, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Matt Strassler (February 15)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Ldm1954 were:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs to

meet any of the eight academic-specific criteria
or cite multiple reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject, which cover the subject in some depth

Make sure your draft meets one of the criteria above before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If the subject does not meet any of the criteria, it is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The comment the reviewer left was:

While reviewing this, there were far too many statments made which could not be verified, for instance "full Professor at Rutgers". Some I have deleted, some I have marked. Too many statements bent the truth too far for me. While he does have a few well cited papers, he has no major academic awards and too much dubious information for me to be comfortable with accepting this draft.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Matt Strassler and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Ldm1954 (talk) 03:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NatGertler! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Ldm1954 (talk) 03:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vyond "grounded" videos[edit]

I would like a second opinion on this edit, because the edit adds back the Internet Gutter source, which I feel may be on the verge of disruptive editing against consensus. It is in my opinion that the so-called "grounded" videos should not be mentioned at all. --Minoa (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the Pao Collective[edit]

Hi Nat Gertler, I have items on my neverending to-do list that may be of interest to you - awhile back, I worked on the article for Parismita Singh, who is one of the founding members of the Pao Collective, an organization that promoted comics and supported comic artists in India. In Singh's article, I redlinked other members of the collective, and it seems possible that the Pao Collective may have support for its own article. I recall there are further sources in the Taylor & Francis database at the Wikipedia Library, which was one of the reasons I had specifically advocated for obtaining access to T&F. Anyway, just an fyi if you are looking for comics-related articles to work on. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking to do less editing these days, not more. You may want to post about this at WP:COMICS (although there is a lean there toward US comics, unsurprisingly). If you have any conflict of interest in regard to Singh or the Pao Collective, be sure to mention it in your posting. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to eventually get to the articles, and I don't have any COI with the subjects - my suggestion to you is overall based on the quality of your writing and general interests, and ultimately intended as a thank you for your work. Beccaynr (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The text on Conversion Therapy is grammatically incorrect[edit]

I'm not sure why you reverted my edit to a version which is definitely gramatically incorrect. A sub-list within a list calls for commas in the sub-list and semicolons in the outer list.

I typed in "semicolon grammar list" and these are from the top 3 results from google:

"Semicolons can be used to link items in a list, such as objects, locations, names and descriptions. Where the list items already contain commas, a semicolon helps avoid confusion between the items; in this way the semicolon acts like a 'super comma'". (https://www.adelaide.edu.au/writingcentre/ua/media/56/learningguide-semicolons.pdf)

"Use a semicolon between items in a list or series if any of the items contain commas." (https://writing.wisc.edu/handbook/semicolons/)

"Complex lists in sentences can be hard to read. If you can’t use a bullet or numbered list, separate list items with: commas if the list is simple, such as a list of single words semicolons if the list is complex, such as a list of items that already contain commas or conjunctions." (https://www.stylemanual.gov.au/grammar-punctuation-and-conventions/punctuation-and-capitalisation/semicolons)

Twerges (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be overlooking the primary use of semicolons. "Use a semicolon between closely related independent clauses which are not joined by a coordinating conjunction. This rule means that semicolons are used between two complete sentences which are not already linked by words like and, but, or, nor, for, so, yet." I suggest reading MOS:SEMICOLON for more understanding. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm referring to the embedded list towards the end of that sentence. There is a list within a list, which requires semicolons in the outer list. Whether it's the primary use of semicolons or not, semicolons are required in that case.

The pages you cited don't address this issue, one way or the other. The quotation you provided misses the point completely. Furthermore, this issue is not addressed by MOS:SEMICOLON, either, because it's a less common rule of grammar which MOS:SEMICOLON doesn't address. However, the issue is addressed by the three external pages I provided. A list within a list requires semicolons in the outer list.

The semicolon in the original version can be either a semicolon or a period. Both are correct, and both are compatible with MOS:SEMICOLON. However, the embedded list toward the end of the sentence requires semicolons.

I'm not demanding the sentence be exactly the way I want it. However, it contains a glaring and elementary grammatical error at present.

Twerges (talk) 12:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I had missed that you changed that, as that shows up nigh-invisibly on the change report and the other semicolon-related change represented all the bytes of change. Sorry. Adjusted. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, thanks...

Twerges (talk) 05:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider kindness[edit]

Thanks for the comment on my talk page. It is really helpful after working to remove vandalism, to find that another seasoned contributor has left a message with accusations of damage and a request to stop my own contributions. Instead - I'll thank you for your contributions and your perspectives. All the best. TRL (talk) 01:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider being kind to the people who you falsely accuse of vandalism, including continuing to defend your bad actions when confronted with them. That seems like an effort likely to discourage active new editors. The fact that you gave an editor a "Final warning" over something that was not vandalism should give you pause. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional practice[edit]

Our discussion over there is a tangent to that topic, so I thought I'd bring it here. I invite you to look at these comments from your archived talk pages:

October 2009: Do you think that the comment from Historyguy is a reply to Ragazz? I don't. But it's indented under it. Were you confused? I'm not.
February 2010: Do you think the comment from TheRealFennShysa is a reply to Ed? I don't. Your reply at the time suggests you didn't, either. But it's indented under Ed's comment instead of yours.
July 2010: Do you think the comment from Moreno Oso is a reply to the now-blocked sock? It's indented that way.
October 2014: Do you think Kudpung's comment is a reply to Miroslav303? It's indented that way.

I could keep going, but instead I suggest this: Show me a list of discussions on your talk page that involve more than two editors and in which your preferred style was actually used before 2019 (=when the consultation that led to the Reply tool's creation happened). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to go on ignoring the guidelines, practice, and the very situation that got me in this. I had mistaken you as someone who was merely ignorant, rather than defiant, and have zero energy or desire to play these games with you at the moment.Let us end it here. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]