User:NatGertler
Rectangles about Nat
|
Am I important? I'll have you know that I'm an editor at Wikipedia!
Yes, I am Nat Gertler the writer, as well as the publisher of About Comics (somebody finally made that page, although it's looking pretty damn stubby. If you feel like building on it, please do!)
I don't tend to add substantial new information to pages. Generally, I correct errors, reword for clarity, note where the source cited doesn't actually state the claim made, add things missing from lists... those sort of little polishes. I'm most frequently found on comics and same-sex marriage topics, and post under my own name so that no one can accuse me of hiding a conflict of interest (a conflict I try to avoid, although I couldn't resist adding an info box to Mister U.S..) On the rare occasions when I start new pages, it's generally quite stubby -- my motivation is not "I know a lot about this", but "this is really something that should have a page"; my hope is that more knowledgeable folks will find the stub and fertilize it. Stubs I've created so far:
And here's the guy I'd like to nominate as the patron saint of Wikipedia editors: "...Philitas studied false arguments and erroneous word-usage so intensely that he wasted away and starved to death..."
Do Something. If it works, do more of it. If it doesn't, do something else.
— Franklin D. Roosevelt
Wikipedia: Do not turn Wikipedia into Strip Wikipedia
The game of Nomic is primarily designed as a set of rules in which players can change the rules of the game, including the conditions for winning. It is an article of faith among the Nomic community that a game of Nomic is never more than three good rule changes away from becoming Strip Nomic. In many ways, Wikipedia is like Nomic. While it is not at heart (originally) a game, it is nonetheless built around a system of policies that include within themselves the ability to change those policies. As such, it may be tempting for some editors to attempt to modify policy with the goal of turning Wikipedia into Strip Wikipedia. For a variety of reasons, this is not a good idea, and should not be pursued, in much the same way as one should not try to put beans up one's own nose; the sense of achievement that one might obtain would be dwarfed by the negative effects.
Being nude ≠ being bold
Failing to Investigate Before Making Allegation
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)