User Talk: NatGertler

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{UserTalkArchive}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 8
|minthreadsleft = 8
|algo = old(100d)
|archive = User talk:NatGertler/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{Talk header}}

March 2026

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Welcome to Wikipedia ↗. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at :Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC on renaming AfD ↗, is considered bad practice ↗, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page ↗ to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. ''Regarding Special:Diff/1345160335 ↗.'' FaviFake (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

{{ping|FaviFake}} Have you checked that diff? I neither deleted nor edited your comment, but simply added template:unsigned ↗ -- which is there specifically for instances like this, where someone failed to fully sign their comment on a discussion page (and in this case, finding out who posted it was quite useful for finding out what the point of the RFC was about, as you had failed to provide any context.) If you are unfamiliar with discussion practices, well, there are many pages for you to review. Feel free to start with Help:Getting started ↗ yourself if you feel that is what is needed. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:35, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
:@NatGertler From WP:RFC ↗:{{tq2|1=Add a timestamp at the end of the brief statement, using either <nowiki>~~~~ (username, time, and date) or ~~~~~</nowiki> (just the time and date). Signing with your username is optional. A 2024 RfC ↗ was closed with consensus against requiring initial statements to be signed by the person who posts it.}} FaviFake (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
::Which does not make the addition of a standard template placed after your statement "editing" it -- such templates exist to allow that very practice. But you decided to use an inappropriate template on my talk page. Please feel free not to do that in the future. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
:::{{tq|1=Which does not make the addition of a standard template placed after your statement "editing" it}} Yes it does. Signature cleanup, aka adding the unsigned template, is explicitly listed as an '''example of editing other editors' comments''' at WP:TPO ↗. Therefore, I'd say i used the correct user warning template, as you edited my comment without my permission. FaviFake (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
::::If you consider a Welcome template to be the proper thing to use on the talk page of a user with far more experience than you, then you still have things to learn. In any case, you are banned from this talk page. Nat Gertler (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::Ah, I see that you gamed this discussion ↗. Wow. Nat Gertler (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::Coming in from outside here. Not wanting to take sides, but I have two observations.
::::::*WP:RFC has not required a full signature for many years. The present advice is {{tq|Add a timestamp at the end of the brief statement, using either <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code> ↗ (username, time, and date) or <code><nowiki>~~~~~</nowiki></code> ↗ (just the time and date). Signing with your username is optional.}} Something similar has been in the page since November 2011 ↗. There have been several proposals to require a full signature, but this has never achieved consensus.
::::::*For some months now, FaviFake has been altering policy and guideline pages, often without prior discussion. They've been repeatedly warned not to, but since they don't archive their talk page (instead simply deleting all but the newest 1-3 threads), it's very difficult to find these warnings.
::::::Hope that helps yourself and Bishonen. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

User:[Redacted]

Why exactly did you blank ''[REDACTED]'''s page? I get that you said it was WP:OUTING but that information has been publicly known and available for a very long time, and the edits which ''[REDACTED]'' made were made from the [REDACTED]. This isn't under the criteria for outing from what I read, so please specify. Reallyena (talk) 08:46, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

:Her name is [redacted], she made edits from ''[REDACTED]''. Not that hard to connect the dots. Reallyena (talk) 08:54, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
:The very first sentence of WP:OUTING ↗ says "Posting another editor's personal information is unacceptable, unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information, '''on Wikipedia'''." (Emphasis in the original.) The account literally has had only one edit, as you'll see at Special:Contributions/Astro_Christina ↗, and nothing in that edit is them stating their identity. All of the edits to User:Astro Christina have been by third parties, and each one that added new material violated our outing rules. If that user wishes to reveal their identity on Wikipedia, they are certainly free to do so. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
::Just so you know, the page has been nominated at MFD here ↗. I also meant the ping you there, and I'm leaving this message because it probably didn't go through Chess enjoyer (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Garfield

Hi. I found these for the Garfield film rights.

https://variety.com/2016/film/news/garfield-animated-movie-alcon-1201781160/

https://movieweb.com/garfield-movie-fully-cg-animated-reboot/ Iacowriter (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

:These talk about "securing exclusive movie rights" -- that's the language of a license, and is different than actually owning the property. This gives them temporary permission to make films, which the owner is not allowed to license to others during that time, but such things usually include some form of reversion (i.e., the real owners get control back if no films are made for X years.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
::Shouldn’t it be like Spider-Man then? Because it says that Sony Pictures owns the film rights for the same reason. Because here’s what it says for the ownership on Spider-Man:
::Marvel Entertainment(The Walt Disney Company)
::Sony Pictures (films) Iacowriter (talk) 20:36, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
:::Or is this different from Spider-Man? Iacowriter (talk) 20:37, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
::::I don't feel like trying to figure out what's right with Spider-Man, and it is quite possible that Sony actually purchased those rights. But it seems rather unlikely for Garfield, which had already had films from another company. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Invitation to attend a salon/edit-a-thon in North San Diego County

175x175px|right ↗
Who: All members of the public

What: A Edit a thon in San Marcos, California ↗.

When: Sunday 10 May 2026, 12:00PM PDT / 1200 until 4:00PM PDT / 1600

Where: a Library in San Marcos, California

Sponsor: 25x25px ↗ San Diego Wikimedians User Group ( '''US-SAN''' ) ↗

Your host: {{user|RightCowLeftCoast}}

Please add your username to our attendees list ↗ so we know how many will be attending, due to limited space available.
<div class="center">{{Quote frame|The County of San Diego Library does not advocate or endorse the views or positions expressed by the users of its facilities.|County of San Diego County Library Community Room Policy}}</div>
(Delivered: 02:27, 19 April 2026 (UTC) You can unsubscribe from future invitations to San Diego Wikimedians User Group events by removing your name from the WikiProject San Diego mass mailing list ↗ and/or Los Angeles area task force mass mailing list ↗.)
{{clear}}

Question

Hi, it looks like you're monitoring my edits specifically. Is there a reason for that? You reversed my edits on three different pages:

02:44, 22 April 2026 diff hist +398 End (film) Undid revision 1350431197 by Krhinestone (talk) inappropriate addition of external link. Film may have a point of view, but we would want it sourced. '''This was edited based on a suggestion on the talk page. I was following Wikipedia's tutorial instructions on adding content based on talk page suggestions.'''

02:37, 22 April 2026 diff hist +118 History of the Jews in Manchester →21st century: flagged improperly used IMDb source
'''This was edited based on a suggestion on the talk page. I was following Wikipedia's tutorial instructions on adding content based on talk page suggestions.'''

02:32, 22 April 2026 diff hist +20 Christian observance of Passover →top: Tried to address new first sentence so it made sense again; a Seder is a feast, not something that is observed but something that is undertaken. '''A seder is a religious ritual practice that is observed, not just a meal:''' https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/how-to-conduct-a-seder/ Krhinestone (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

:You showed up editing Christian observance of Passover ↗, which is a page I regularly edit and is on my WP:WATCHLIST ↗. When I had some concerns about your edits there, and I saw that you were a new editor, I checked some of the things that you'd been editing to see if you were doing the same sort of concerning thing, so that I might address it as a larger picture thing on your page. In doing so, I found several different concerning edits, not the same one repeatedly. I tend to try to address problems when I see them.
:* Your edit to End (film) ↗ had a couple problems, the most egregious one being that you put an ''external link'' -- a link to a page outside of Wikipedia -- into the main text of the article. As you can see at Wikipedia:External links ↗, "External links normally should not be placed in the body of an article."
:* I did not reverse your edit at History of the Jews in Manchester ↗. Yes, you were following a suggestion from the Talk page... however, it was an imperfect suggestion. It is quite possible that mention of the documentary should be on the page. We would want to see something other than IMDb used as a reference (which was the problem with the talk page suggestion), both because IMDb attempts to list every movie and we'd really want some source telling us that this particular movie is due for inclusion on this particular topic, and because we don't consider IMDb to be a reliable source, which you can see discussed at WP:IMDB ↗. So I tagged it with the "better source needed" tag, which suggests that it is likely that it's something that should be in the article, but could use better sourcing.
:My like is full at the moment, and I don't always have the time to give even a new user a full discussion of what they've done well and what they could do better. But thank you for trying to improve Wikipedia! -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
::I appreciate that explanation and those links to more info, thank you! Krhinestone (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
:::All experienced editors were new editors once, and none of us started by editing perfectly. This place has a learnign curve, but it is worth it. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Charles Forbell

I got the inspiration to write a bit on Charles Forbell ↗, but the literature I have was scarce. Praise is heaped on ''Naughty Pete'' where I can find something. If you know a good source, probably ''Art Out of Time: Unknown Comics Visionaries, 1900-1969'', there's plenty more to add, but I haven't the book on hand, just a review of it. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

:while I cannot edit the article myself due to conflict of interest, in the next couple of days I will get you a link to the introduction to the collection of Forbell’s Cuddles strip. That will get you some biographical information including some corrections (he didn’t actually work for Pea Soup Anderson’s; they licensed an existing cartoon.) I don’t have much information on the Pete strip, however. Should also end up setting up redirects for the title of both strips to Forbell’s article. But that is a good start, and Im glad to see it! — Nat Gertler (talk) 23:09, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
::Really, Andersen's licensed exosting cartoons? Lambiek article says he designed two pea-themed characters for the brand. I look forward to seeing whatever you have + will work on those redirects. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 12:16, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
:::Lambiek, while quite useful, often makes assumptions or doesn't know things. (Not long ago, I got to point out to them that they had two entries who were actually the same person using different pen names.)
:::Anyway, once you see the introduction, you'll see it's a little slight, but should have a few items you can use. The pages don't have page numbers on them, but they should be accorded arabic numerals, with the last page being 6 (the next page, the start of the strip reprints, is numbered 7.) Proper citation for it would probably be <nowiki>{{cite book|title=Cuddles, an American Flapper at King Arthur's Court||last1=Forbell |first1=Charles |contributor-last1=Gertler |contributor-first1=Nat |contributor-link1=Nat Gertler|contribution=Introduction|page=|publisher=About Comics ↗ |location=Camarillo, California |isbn= 978-1-949996-94-4|page=3|date=2026 }}</nowiki> It is a WP:SPS ↗, but I think things like my Eisner Award for co-writing a Charles Schulz biography will mean that it meets the ''Self-published sources may be considered reliable if published by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications'' part of the guideline.
:::I hope that that helps. Let me know if you have any questions! -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Reconrabbit}} Just checking to make sure the link I sent you via email arrived. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:02, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
::::Yes, it did. Thank you. I used it as a source for some parts of the article on Forbell. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 13:23, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::Foolish me -- I thought I'd put the article on my watchlist, but hadn't, which is why it wasn't popping up with changes having been made. Perhaps I shall be a wiser man today. Sorry to have wasted your time! -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Wiknic & edit-a-thon/salon in Southern California

{{Gallery
| align = center
| height = 150
| File:Wiknic logo.svg
| Great American Wiknic logo
| File:4th of July at Vacation Isle, Mission Bay, San Diego, California 022.jpg
| Vacation Isle, Mission Bay, San Diego, California
| File:San Diego Wiknic 2025 Bonfire - 5.jpg
| Fire within a fire ring on Vacation Isle, Mission Bay.
| File:San Diego Wikimedians User Group.png
| San Diego Wikimedians User Group logo
}}
{| style="margin: auto"
|<div style="{{Round corners}}; width: 550px; text-align: center; margin-right: 1em; border: 1px solid /777777;padding:0.5em 1.0em; background:#FFFFFF;background-image: radial-gradient(#2F241D,#2F241D)">'''San Diego Wiknic Potluck 2026'''</div>
|}
Who: All members of the public, especially active Wikimedians.
What: Mission Bay Wiknic & Bonfire ↗.
When: Saturday 1 August, 4:00PM/1600 PDT until 10:00PM/2200 PDT
Where: Vacation Isle, Mission Bay ↗
thumb|150x150px|Chula Vista Public Library Civic Center Branch ↗
The next day: Chula Vista edit-a-thon/salon ↗
When: Sunday 2 August, 1:15PM/1315 PDT until 4:15PM/1615 PDT
Where: Chula Vista Public Library Civic Center Branch ↗
<div class="center">{{Quote frame|The City of Chula Vista Public Library does not advocate nor endorse the views or positions expressed by the users of its facilities.|Chula Vista Public Library Meeting Room Policy}}</div>
Sponsor: San Diego Wikimedians User Group ( '''US-SAN''' ) ↗
Your host: {{user|RightCowLeftCoast}}
Please add your username to our attendees list ↗ so we know how many will be attending.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject San Diego ↗ at 22:21, 15 May 2026 (UTC). You can unsubscribe from future invitations to San Diego Wikimedians User Group events by removing your name from the WikiProject San Diego mass mailing list ↗, from the Southern California meet-up group by removing your name from the LA meet-ups mailing list ↗, and from future San Diego Wiknic invitations by removing your name from the San Diego Wiknic mail list ↗.
{{clear}}

May 2026

thumb|300px ↗

Here, take my cookies because you deserve it. ImVeryStupid (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

RSN

Hi Nat. I really appreciate the advice you gave to me at RSN about the sources. I did have one follow up question, but an IP editor at RSN has apparently taken issue with the fact I wanted help and I try and avoid confrontation where possible, hence why I took my question to RSN in the first place instead or just arguing my point of view with the other editor at the Jobst article, who judging by their edit summaries didn't understand the circumstances under which any of the three sources could be used either. Anyway, I'm also in no hurry, so I thought I'd copy my final question here instead since I value your feedback:

I am indeed the primary decider of what the magazine will contain, though when I submit the magazine draft to CRC for approval they do have the final call and can refuse to publish an article, since they control printing. I'd be interested to know if that changes things, in the sense that while I can see your analogy, BlueSky don't actively review every thing you attempt to post and then decide if you can or not, they just have the ability to delete it later. Does the fact that everything I write is manually reviewed by my employer ''before'' they will accept it for publishing mean that the magazine is not a self-published source? Or in your opinion would it still be considered self-published since I choose all the content and simply submit it for approval with the organisation that funds and prints it? Thanks. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:43, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

:Damien!
:What you are asking me is what side of the line an edge-case would fall, and the best I could give to you on that would be my opinion of where it should fall. If it came down as an issue, there would be discussion between many folks bringing their own judgment. There may be some precedent which would pinpoint whether or not it would be seen as self-publishing.
:However, if this were to be fully discussed, crossing over that self-publishing question would not be the only question. It could be questioned whether your publication is a reliable source for this information. Is it the sort of publication that others would be likely to cite for information like this? There is no source that Wikipedia considers reliable for everything -- the most respected newspaper in the world cannot be used as a source for the effect of a drug, for that we would rely on medical specialty publications, and those publications should not be used for the status of the Strait of Hormuz, which is more in the newspaper's range. ''Paper Chained ↗'' may be respected for its insight on the arts, or on the condition of the Australian incarcerated (or not, I've done no research), but is it a reliable source for judging whether someone is an investigative reporter? We are generally more likely to be concerned about that sort of detail when there is something contentious being said; we might well accept a source that says "Nat Gertler is a writer" but not accept the same source for the claim "Nat Gertler is reputed to tell lies for money." It sounds like there was some question in court of whether the individual was an investigative reporter; that would seem top qualify it as a contentious statement.
:(If your interest in this is less an interest in using this source for this statement and more as an abstract question trying to figure out where Wikipedia's lines are, let me point you to a thread a couple above this on this page, where we're discussing the inclusion of some information about Charles Forbell coming from an essay of mine. Is this a self-cite? No, because I'm just recommending the citation, someone else is actually evaluating whether it should be included and choosing to add it. Is it self-published? Absolutely, it is an essay that I wrote that appears in a collection of Forbell's work which I published. If Forbell was alive, we couldn't use it. But is it a reliable source? I am an award-winning writer specifically for my writing on comics history and cartoonist biographies, my work has appeared in respectable places and has been cited (some) academically, so it can reasonably be deemed to fall into the WP:EXPERTSPS ↗ range.)
:I hope that some of that answers some of your questions; at the moment, I am too tired to be terse. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

::Hi Nat. Thanks for the prompt response. This definitely answers my question. I am indeed more trying to see where the boundaries lie, and this answer does a great job of clearly explaining that, well, the line isn't always clear. Despite my relatively high-edit count I mostly stick to gnome work and historically I've mostly written at low-traffic articles, parts of history that people forgot, and I try to actively avoid disputes where possible. So I know a lot about certain policies on Wikipedia, and relatively little about others. Anyway I very much appreciate the time you've taken out of your day to write this reply so please feel free to contact me if you need a favour, for example a GA or FA reviewer on an article you've nominated, or something similar. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:07, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
:::Thanks for the kind offer! -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:08, 16 June 2026 (UTC)