Talk:Nat Gertler/Archive 1

Archive 1

No Factor in Deserving Recognition?

My interest in correcting misstatements is in conflict with the inappropriateness of editing my own entry -- but let me point out that the Eisner Award for Talent Deserving Wider Recognition goes to the individual not the work. While "The Factor" was pretty clearly the work that inspired that nomination, it was I, not "The Factor", who was nominated (and ultimately beaten by Bendis). If someone can verify this information in whatever manner is appropriate and correct it, I'd appreciate it!

NatGertler (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Done! Kenllama/(talk) 02:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

my current website

I note that the article is using my old website (gertler.com/nat/) as a reference. That website grew quite outdated; I now have an up-to-date website at Gertler.com which has more current info, credits, and a fuller biography, and thus may make a better source from here on in. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

thanks Nat! Kenirwin/(talk) 13:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

And thanks back atcha! --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Mighty Murdered Power Ringer?

I noticed on AT4W that Nat wrote said comic as "Nigel Ing." Is this okay to add the Comica on this page LINK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.50.47 (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Advert

The article reads like an advertisment when you include "Los Angeles Times, The Boston Globe, USA Today, etc the Chicago Sun-Times". It should read simply as "His 2010 The Peanuts Collection received positive reviews." (with those references) There is only one mention of Nat Gertler on Gnews and it's with him making a comment on a blog. Causeandedit (talk) 13:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• I would suggest you read WP:ADVERT. This article is written neutrally in tone and the tag simply does not apply. I've removed it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• • I agree with Shawn in Montreal. If an independent reviewer in a newspaper writes a glowing review, then it is fine for us to say so. When neutral, nonbiased and respected sources such as the Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, and Chicago Sun-Times say they like a book, then it is fine for us to include that information.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• If you click the "Archives" link on Gnews, you will find dozens of other references to "Nat Gertler". Without going to the Archives, Gnews only gives you the past few weeks. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• This comment makes it abundantly clear that what we have here is more a question of tit-for-tat WP:POINT than any genuine attempt to address real issues. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• One again Shawn you are making false personal assumptions. Of course it's a genuine attempt to fix the real issues. I think even Nat would agree, the article the way it was yesterday was badly written... now it reads a lot better.Causeandedit (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not suggesting that there are no improvements to be made: in fact, I've stated on the Liber article that your citations needed tag should be retained, as you well know. But the comment in the link above cannot be taken seriously. And of course none of this helps your Hay article one bit. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

While the prior version could certainly use improvement (few Wikipedia articles couldn't), no, I would not consider the removal of properly sourced and appropriate material and the injection of new errors to be an improvement. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Shawn, I'm not trying to help the Hay article by having this convo here. Explain what you mean by "comment in the link above cannot be taken seriously".Causeandedit (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Nat, I haven't removed anything from the article or added in any new errors. Causeandedit (talk) 16:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Gertner

At some point in the recent edits, someone named "Gertner" was added to the article. You may want to correct that. (And if any of the recent deletions were based on concerns about using my own writing for reference, one may wish to review WP:SELFSOURCE.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC) Oh, and as long as I'm suggesting corrections: in the infobox, "nomination" would properly be plural; I received a second one in 2006, as you can see here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Photo please? Email it to thomaswrightsulcer (at) yahoo (dot) com, along with date of photo, email address of photographer, and permission to put in Wikipedia. Thanx.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I have a good candid-looking shot with the proper rights; I will try to remember to get one the next time I'm not looking particularly shaggy. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see Commons guidelines as to why Nat -- or anyone -- cannot upload images of themselves. Am I missing something? Someone else might have to add it to the article, but uploading the image to Commons is ok? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

You're right in that anyone can upload an image of themselves. Here is the link to upload files to Commons. One way is to use a timer, and take a picture that way; another is to have a relative take one (and use the relative's e-mail address).There is a learning curve for uploading pictures; it helps to have a successful track record of successful photo uploads. If anybody runs into any problems, let me know; I've uploaded many photos and know the ropes.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to assure people, I do have at least a little experience uploading pictures to the Commons. And yes, I could quickly take a snap of myself, but I have no particular interest in donating a picture which doesn't have me looking somewhere near my best. Yes, yes, I know that the proper picture of me will set many hearts aflutter and may encourage moral degeneracy in our youth, but that is a price I'm willing to have civilization pay. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has special purpose makeover teams ready to parachute into Pasadena to prep you for your beauty shot, Nat, even for persons who are admittedly and unashamedly no longer Commons upload virgins. Just drop your coordinates below and our team will rope off much of Pasadena with an extra contingent of riot police on-the-ready to mace any breakthrough crowds of crazed teenaged girls who overrun the outer perimeter. Wiki scientists have assured me that the sudden rush of people to your house will not throw our planet off its axis, in all statistical likelihood.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know guys, so much talk on this page seems like a COI wouldn't you say? I mean Nat is directing people and orchestraing (not the pics) on how it should be done, but then saying he doesn't want to because it's a "COI"... I don't know. Causeandedit (talk) 22:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Puh-leeze. Your operative phrase, above, is "I don't know" -- which you meant sarcastically, but it is really true. You don't know. And I know that you don't know. And there's no conflict of interest, since I do not know Nat or Shawn, but I can contribute to his article, like I've contributed to hundreds of biography articles, by merely following Wikipedia's rules, which you should try to learn.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand you don't know, Cause. In this case, you don't know that addressing problems with a biographical page about you by raising the issues on the talk page is what the guidelines recommends. If you nonetheless have an issue with it, feel free to take it to the COI noticeboard. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey Tom, wonderful attitude. Your "personal insults" are indeed noted. You tell me to follow wikipedia rules, but then you go and break them lol. Causeandedit (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

As long as I'm noting corrections - while I was based in the lovely city of Pasadena for a fair number of years, I left there before the current century began; I am now on my third location since. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• ;-) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

"I left there before the current century began" -- sounds suspiciously like something a Pasadenan might say. Hmmmmm... :) --Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Photo needed

If anyone reading this has a photo, please write something here. A headshot would add to this article. In addition, if an image or drawing would like to be donated to Wikimedia, about a comic strip character or seen, that might help this article too.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, I think this article would be much improved with a photo or drawing; if this is too difficult, I could sketch a drawing myself to add here, and note that in Mrs. Hemperberger third grade art class, my drawing ranked 17th in the class, entitling me to an honorary tootsie roll.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

AFD

I was double teamed by you guys before when this article should have been up for serious discussion for deletion. That's not right. Most of the sources a re from his own website????? This reads like SPAM and is promoting his work. Causeandedit (talk) 01:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

This article is fine; it has reliable sources; meets the WP:GNG. Seems like User:Causeandedit is proposing deletion out of vengeance.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

In case any onlookers are wondering what's going on: Causeandedit is responding to my involvement in AFD discussions for articles he's been working on. When I was involved in the ultimately successful deletion discussion for one such article, he responded by going after the article on my occasional collaborator Steve Lieber. Now, he's responding to my involvement in another deletion discussion by going after the article about me. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we know what is going on. Admins are studying Causeandedit's tit-for-tat which does not appear to be in good faith.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits

In case anyone is wondering what's going on, recent edits have come from User:Coolboygcp, an editor who created an article I submitted for deletion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Yep. Feel free to write on my talk page Nat in case I miss this kind of stuff.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Info about family, hometowns, education etc

My concern was having a separate subsection for each (early life, education, family etc) with one sentence for each, detracts from the article. Here, short & pithy is the key, focusing on what's encyclopedic => Nat Gertler as a comic artist. I moved information to categories so if people from Riverton, New Jersey want to claim NG as one of their own, they can find him. Other people can find this information on the NG website.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Why? It doesn't make sense what you did. Hometown, family, educational institution attended ... all are in countless other articles inline. ---- Wikiklrsc (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

As the subject here, I have no legit vote on proper presentation and will stay out of that battle. However, in the interest of factual accuracy, I will note that I attended Simon's Rock just after it was bought up by Bard, and it had not changed to its current name; as such, if the material is kept in body copy, it should probably be wikilinked as Simon's Rock rather than than Bard College at Simon's Rock. And if the categories remain, despite its name and ownership, Simon's Rock is a physically separate institution from Bard (not even the same state) with its own history, tradition, and rules; as such, the category of Bard College alumni does not seem appropriate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Noted. There is no category yet for Simon's Rock alumni, but I added the term anyway. If Simon's Rock College was indeed bought up by Bard (I remember reading something to that effect) then technically Nat you are an alumnus of Bard College with the dubious distinction of getting regular solicitations to donate, am I right? About whether information about your education, hometowns, kids name, wife's name, town of current residence remains, my sense is they detract from the article focus (ie, NG is notable for being a comic artist) but I will defer to your judgment Nat since it really is a judgment call here, that is, let's go with what you decide, so please say what you would like.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, Wikiklrsc, to illustrate what I am trying to get at, perhaps take a look at Chris Agee. He's a notable poet. But the article has been deluged with all sorts of extraneous stuff of tangential importance. As a result, somebody seriously wanting to know about this poet will have to wade through all the irrelevant stuff and their eyes will blur over. Now, a few lines about hometown, school, probably could be included, but my intent was to keep the article pithy and focused.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Barack Obama's article and fame may arise from his political career, but it nonetheless reflects the fact that he was born on a Marxist commune in Kenya (oh, damn, someone's been editing again.) I'd probably leave my kids names out of it for varyious reasons (although were I editing this, in the interest of building internal links, I might note that my siblings include Brie Gertler), and that given the current lightness of info, I'd probably group it all under one subhead (Personal life, perhaps) rather than have a series of subheads of a single sentence. (It may also make the article seem a little less hypy.) No, I don't get financial solicitations from Bard College, only from "Bard College at Simon's Rock", which is the same institution that solicits people who graduated the year before I entered, before Bard was in the picture. Bard College also owns the Abigail Lundquist Botstein Nursery School, but I don't think that attending that would make one considered a "Bard Alumni". Separate schools (if on cooperative terms, but many schools are), shared ownership. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Eh? I hope I'm not Agee-ing it up. Removed Bard College alumni, although colleges have a way of claiming credit when graduates do cool stuff. If I can't talk you into releasing a photo of your glamorous self, how about contributing a cartoon -- call it Wikipedia Man! -- in color please, so we can add it to your page so it looks less texty.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. It's quite normal to have educational material inline and place of birth, hometown, etc. And many articles have spouse/family information. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Photo

What about including this on your page. Wondering

Per Tom's (repeated) request, a photo of me can now be found here; it is not ideal by Wikipedia terms, but it's what I feel comfortable releasing. I'm sure that within a year, it will be replaced by a shot of me in the convention just in the midst of eating a bit meatball sub. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Oooooo. I like the photo. It has attitude. It looks like you've just made a witty comment, but are nonchalant about it and are watching the viewer either (1) chuckle or (2) fumbling to understand the joke and then aha they get it and then they chuckle. The photo has oomph. Thanx. So does this mean I can no longer bug your for a color sketch of something you like, such as 'Wikipedia Man' or something equally clever, leaps tall articles with a single bound, something like that?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Tom, I'm a writer. My drawing is strictly amateur city. I would not want to befoul Wikipedia with it. But you are, of course, free to bug me as much as you want; you would merely find success disappointing. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I should read the Wikipedia article Nat Gertler. Note to self: doesn't say cartoonist in such article. As Emily Littella might say, "Never mind."--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you would put that Eisner Award on my page; while I've been involved with a number of Peanuts projects (and am currently a regular writer on the Peanuts comic book series published by kaboom), Peanuts: A Golden Celebration is not something that I contributed to. (I presume you're confusing that 50th anniversary book with by The Peanuts Collection, a 60th anniversary book.) It is a very shiny plaque; the certificates I have for my nominations are much less impressive. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

In your article, I saw the word Eisner and the word Peanuts and I saw those words on the plaque, so I wondered whether it could work here, but I am not knowledgeable about the particulars, which is why I asked, or even about plaque shininess. From my perspective, getting published is super-impressive, hell even being paid for writing is super-impressive. So you can see why I am your fan. I speak from experience: my self-published essay about How to prevent terrorism only sold about 40 copies (previous edition), although many of my predictions (such as recent stuff involving the NSA and the Utah Data Center) are partially being realized. Anyway, if you ever take a photo of your award certificates, whether nominated or won, and post them, my sense would be to include it here if you wished. In Wikipedia, I love color: color photos, drawings, even black and white ones, as much as possible to build readership and make Wikipedia more fun. My two cents.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I should note that the photo I posted is actually in color; I just happen to be very gray. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Editing suggestions from the subject

First off, thanks to everyone who put thoughtful effort into the recent AFD, including the voicing of appropriate concerns. I'm glad that's past. Now you'll have to forgive me, but there are a number of things that I would clean up about this article if I found it written about somebody else, but I obviously have a WP:COI here:

• All of the review quotes should probably be moved out of the introduction; they would be more appropriate for something like a "critical response" section, and would make the article seem less hypy.

Agreed.  Done--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• "He was nominated twice for the Eisner Award,[2][4] once in 1999,[3][16] which is the comic book industry's equivalent to the Oscar Awards" should have its clauses rearranged, so that it is the Eisner that is the equivalent of the Oscars, not 1999.

Agreed, except easier to simply remove 1999. Done--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• "as well as numerous titles" - the word "numerous" is POV, and can be stricken here.

Eh, why not. The reference used the word numerous; not sure how POV-ish the word numerous is.  Done--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• "About Comics[20] which manages properties such as The Weasel Patrol, The Factor, Licensable BearTM, and The Liberty Project." About Comics publishes those properties, but only "manages" (i.e., represent the licensing rights) for half of those listed. Probably best to just say "publishes".

Okey dokey.  Done--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• "Gertler's scripts PANEL ONE and PANEL TWO were highly recommended in USA Today for persons interested in learning how to write a comic book." - That should be "Gertler's script anthologies", perhaps; these are not collections of my scripts, but my editing and publishing collections of scripts of various writers; I only wrote one of the roughly 20 scripts included in these volumes. Also, title case should be used (i.e., Panel One, Panel Two.)

 Done--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• "Selected comics works" section should probably be retitled "Selected comics-related works" (or maybe just "Selected works"), as three of them are not primarily comics.

 Done--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• The AFDing editor deleted material from both the Personal Life and External Links section as part of their campaign on this article; I recommend that the deleted material be reviewed to see if restoration might be appropriate.

No one owes any effort on this article, but if they feel that my suggestions are appropriate, I would be glad to see them addressed. (And if anyone has objections to any of the suggested edits, please raise them here so that someone doesn't follow my suggestions without being award of the objections.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom! I think that the article looks a lot better now. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

"Like resume" tag

I can see from past discussions that this has been of concern to some. The tone of this article reads like that of a book-cover blurb, and the overabundance of cherrypicked reviews is hard to call neutral in tone — we don't generally run review blurbs for people's work in the person's article. We don't do it for giants like John Romita Jr. or, except for one or two instances in a much, much, much longer article, Alan Moore. We could write in Martin Scorsese's article that, "Scorsese's Taxi Driver has been reviewed favorably by [list of five favorable outlets, as given here]," but we don't — all these simply by way of examples. Review quotes for a book would normally go in the "Critical reception" section of that book's Wikipedia article, and since this book has no Wikipedia article, it's hard to say why there should be an entire section of such blurbs when we don't do it at the more neutral article for six-time Eisner winner Dean Mullaney.

I would note there is one editor who refers to attempts to make this article more neutral as "part of a campaign." Let me assure that editor up front that I am involved in no campaign, and my 10-year history of edits shows I have worked to make many articles read more neutrally and encyclopedically.--Tenebrae (talk)

Funny, I can find no editor referring to attempts to make this article neutral to be "part of a campaign". I do find an editor - namely me - referring to an SPA sockpuppet's edits as part of a campaign to delete or damage the article, however. Because of my own activity on Wikipedia, this article has been the target of revenge edits multiple times.

Having said that, I support at the very least getting the review quotes out of the lede, and believe I requested a supportive editor do just that at one point (although I cannot quickly find that request.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC) (Added later: Oh,I see the request is at the start of the Talk page section just above this one.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 11:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The 'like resume' tag really does not apply here; the article never looked like a CV or resume by any stretch. Rather, the comment above raised concerns that the article was too much like a "book blurb"; I moved a sentence from lede paragraph to paragraph on reviews. Restored personal data (birthdate, college, residence location) since it is likely that the author, himself, is, in fact, NatGertler and has not objected to such information.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

If there's any real question whether I'm me, I'm willing to go through basic procedures to demonstrate that. --Nat Gertler (talk) 11:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Interesting philosophical problem. What if you think you're you but your mind has really been taken over by an alien power or by the dasdardly Charles M. Schulz?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Anyone can claim to be anyone on Wikipedia, and even presuming that this is the subject, unpublished information from personal knowledge is forbidden as original research. We cannot make claims about a living person's personal life without proper, RS citing. We especially can't mention minor children without RS citing. Per WP:BLP, I am removing the uncited personal-life claims.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The Los Angeles Times "positive review" claim is unsupported. That citations was NOT a review of the book, but an interview with Jill Schulz where the articles writer says in passing in the lead that "a lavish new coffee table book" has been published. Calling that a "review" is dishonest and misleading. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow. The "positive review" in The Boston Globe was also a misleading claim. The only thing the Globe does is list The Peanuts Collection with two other books that are "Coming out." It wasn't even the "Pick of the week." --Tenebrae (talk)

OK. I've exhaustively researched sources to verify all the biographical content except birth date and birthplace. I've added early-life biography from his official site, and details of comics career from the Grand Comics Database. I also verified all the links and added archive links. The article could use more work, but I think we've at least got it up to MOS. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Corrections

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I appreciate the effort being put into the article. A couple quick corections:

• I have only written one episode of TV so far, not plural.
• the DC Speed Racer volume is indeed a reprint, of Speed Racer Classics #1, which is not indexed at CBDB (although #2 is). You can cite that information to the volume itself. Having said that, the credit there is partially in error, as I am given sole credit for the English script, when I actually only handled the last three of the four stories. (This is not an aggrandizing claim, and thus it should ve reliable; it would be more boastful to claim I was working for DC than for Now.)

I can also confirm that as of this date, I still live in Camarillo with my wife and our teo kids. Unless she changed the locks while I am away for Comic Con. -Nat Gertler (talk) 04:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Meant to say "comics.org", not CBDB, in previous message regarding Speed Racer Classics. Further: I do not have a story in Big Bang 7 (what comics.org lists for that issue is an ad.) I'd suggest some rewording about 24 Hour Comics Day (which interestingly isn't mentioned by name here; it makes it sound like I usurped what McCloud created, rather than just building an event around a challenge that he created and which still exists separate from the event. So rather than " having taken over a concept", just "based on a concept"? --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, I'd suggest that my children's names to not reach the level called for by WP:BLPNAME ("relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject") and would be best omitted. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, the WorldCat entry for Speed Racer Classics] should be sufficient confirmation of my involvement there. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The Sequential Tart interview that was removed as a dead link can now be found here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll work on 24 Hour Comics Day and the GCD/Speed Racer stuff. I already updated the 1998 SeqTart link. I'm going to leave the name issue to another editor: The policy gives editorial discretion, and if it had been an outside source naming them against the subject's will, that's one thing. But when the subject himself gives the information in a publicly available interview, then it feels like the subject is asking for special treatment and control over an encyclopedia article. Family is standard biographical information that appears in virtually every subject's biography. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Tenebrae, asking that a Wikipedia policy such as WP:BLPNAME be applied is not asking for "special treatment". Quite the opposite, it is asking that the official standard treatment be applied. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The policy doesn't say anything about the article subject being able to make requests or to have veto power over publicly known facts, so I'm not sure why you'd suggest that it does. It says, "The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion [emphasis added] that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject."

If something is important enough for the subject to mention it publicly in an interview, then the subject has deemed it significant. To suggest that disinterested, unbiased editors pretend it doesn't exist is asking for special treatment. Biographical family data is included for everyone from Jennifer Garner to much lesser-known figures as Joe Quesada.

The process when a subject feels as you do is outlined at WP:BLPCOMPLAIN, where you can "request that uninvolved editors evaluate the article to make sure it is fairly written and properly sourced." Uninvolved means editors who have not already worked on this article, whom I would ask not to edit-war and to let the process run its course.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

A subject is always able to make suggestions, as is anyone else, Tenebrae, so that's not "special treatment". As for whether I'm dealing in an "unbiased" editor in you is a separate question --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Given all the hard work I did to expand the article about you, bring it up to encyclopedic standard, clean up citing and add new citations, I'm sorry to hear such a vague and uncivil accusation. I have to wonder how anyone could in any way, shape or form believe that someone who did all that is biased against you. I am astonished. And I don't want to take this personally, but I am also flabbergasted at the ingratitude. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

You're also an editor who I've had on-wiki disagreements with in the past, who came onto this talk page suggesting that when I mentioned someone campaigning against this page, I was talking about someone who was just trying to go to NPOV (rather then an editor who animosity was pretty clearly stated), and who has suggested that I am seeking out some "special treatment" for suggesting a change per a Wikipedia policy. I wasn't the one who raised the question of your bias; you were. I did not wish to be assumed to be assuming non-bias by not responding. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Whatever. The objective record, the article's history, shows the good, hard, honest work I did to expand this article — which has twice been nominated for deletion — and bring it up to respectable, encyclopedic standards. I think that says all that needs said to reply to your horrid, unfair and inaccurate implication. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say you haven't done hard work to expand the article. I myself have done hard work to expand articles on topics that I have strong negative opinions about. That I worked hard to maintain balance and accuracy in the article doesn't mean that I don't have a bias on them. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow. I honesty don't know what to say, other than perhaps not everybody is like you. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Guys! guys! Calm it down, please! Tenebrae perhaps you need to take a time-out break and cool off for a while. Is there really any needs for all this back-biting and mudslinging? Especially at the person to whom this article is actually about? I'd have thought for someone who has worked hard to improve this article thus far, would be in awe at having the opportunity to chat to the man - albeit cybernetically. Mr. Gerler had every right to have made a polite request to have the name of his daughter removed from the article. The fact she was mentioned briefly in an interview, does not make her significant to the article's content - (and I mean no disrespect to you or your daughter when I say that, NatGertler). The significance of the child is of personal standing to Nat. It is similar to how te Duke and Duchess of Cambridge requested that the world's media left their children, Prince George and Princess Charlotte, in peace and allow them the chance to grow up as children. Nat's daughter is the innocent person in all of this, and you, Tenebrae, are treating her with so much disrespect, regardless of the fact she is a minor who doesn't know what is going on around her. Now I strongly urge that this be dropped immediately, and call a truce. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 03:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I think if you'll look, you'll see that I never touched the article after another editor removed the name, and I even told the subject the process of how to properly address this — even providing a link to the complaint instructions (at 15:55, 11 July 2015). So given that I clearly respect the process to which I personally pointed the subject, I think I've behaved completely properly. That's what the complaint process is for: When a subject and an editor disagree. When another editor removed the name — following proper procedure — then the subject should have left things alone instead of coming after me gratuitously. And frankly, after I did so much good-faith work to bring an article up to encyclopedic standard, having the subject paradoxically accuse me, with no evidence, of bad-faith editing, is indefensible.

As for being "in awe" — seriously? I've done much more in my career than the subject has, yet even if I hadn't ... "in awe"? I think perhaps you meant to say something much less hyperbolic. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: seriously, stop with the attacking of editors. You probably don't mean it, or maybe still pissed off with what has been said. But when we get like that and in heated situations, then the best thing to do is just back away for a while. Let the dust settle. Acting all diva-like isn't going to solve matters. And it was myself who removed the name from the article, as it was the noble and civil thing to do. Sometimes we need to just swallow our pride, and move on. Life's too short to be getting all worked up over nothing. Live life to enjoy it and to reflect on the good we've done; not to hold regrets in the things we have said and done. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 03:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

@Wesley Mouse:, I appreciate the sentiment and what would normally be good advice. I'm just very confused: I never touched the article after the name was removed, and clearly I never intended to do so since it was I, myself, who told the subject exactly what the process was for getting it removed and even gave him a link to the relevant policy! So after you removed the name at 17:06 July 11, that should have been the end of it.

Yet Gertler attacked me with gratuitous and inaccurate accusations at 22:54, 11 July. So again: I'm very confused why you believe it's OK for him to have said scurrilous and untrue things about me.

Incidentally, while I obviously accept the name's removal since it occurred following proper Wikipedia protocol (which, again, was my idea), removing it was not "noble". In fact, it goes against journalistic ethics, in which censoring publicly available information about a public figure is anathema. Family members are a standard part of non-fiction articles and biographical books, and an encyclopedia should have even higher standards than journalism, not lower ones.

But that's neither here nor there. Let me make clear once again: I never had any intention of fighting a decision that was made properly through policy — policy which I, in fact, informed him about. Yet he made false accusations against me at 22:54, 11 July, after the name was removed and the matter should have ended. And you're telling me it's OK for him to make false accusations against me, and that I shouldn't defend myself against those false accusations. I don't know how that could possibly be considered fair. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Either show where I made a false accusation, or retract that statement, please. The post was made because you expressed curiosity as to how I got my point of view (in a post that you made after what you are now saying "the matter should have ended".) Your supposed defense to the things that I actually said was "Whatever." If I don't go through life assuming that you are unbiased, that is not an attack. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Take responsibility for your vitriol: "As for whether I'm dealing in an 'unbiased' editor in you is a separate question." How dare you impugn me without specifics but with a passive-aggressive I'm-just-asking-a-question disingenuousness. As for your nonsensical comment "I wasn't the one who raised the question of your bias; you were," that's a bizarre, non-contextual, needlessly personal swipe at my remarking about "disinterested, unbiased editors" in general. You then implied I have some bias — and exactly what that bias is, you've never made clear — when comparing me to you: "That I worked hard to maintain balance and accuracy in the article doesn't mean that I don't have a bias on them." To which the only reply I could give was, "Wow. I honesty don't know what to say, other than perhaps not everybody is like you."

I don't know what kind of mind can twist the good, honest, skilled effort I made into some sort of "bias" against you. But after having seen the way you hover over this Wikipedia article, and how at least two misleading and dishonest citations were here falsely claiming "positive reviews," I regret ever trying to be fair and decent with a person like you. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

RE: "If I don't go through life assuming that you are unbiased, that is not an attack." Who in their right mind automatically assumes that another person is biased? Assuming without evidence that another person is biased — indeed, with evidence showing the contrary — is very much an attack. I sincerely don't understand what kind a person automatically assumes the worst of people. That's really something. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Right, the pair of you drop it now! This bickering at each other is not resolving matters. Ceasefire, and walk in opposite directions. Or I shall be closing this entire thread, and request admin intervention to find other ways to get you both to cool down. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 00:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Question for administrator

Please may an administrator intervene here and help provide a ceasefire between these two editors. The disputed content to which the subject asked be removed, has now been resolved. Yet Tenebrae is just refusing to drop the stick; and I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall with these two. Thanks. --Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 01:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I have provided timestamps and concrete evidence that it is Gertler who continued to hound me after the name was removed, making unfounded accusations of bias. Yet you claim I am "refusing to drop the stick"? You evidently have some problem with me because we differ on journalistic ethics, and now you're deliberately ignoring concrete statements and timestamps. You haven't once responded to those statements, and you've allowed Gertler to insult me with impunity. Why you even feel the need to be involved and to take one side over the other, I have no idea, but after your last post, I find it malicious. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@NatGertler, Tenebrae, and Wesley Mouse: I wrote a response to the admin-help request, but Callanecc posted before I got as far as saving it. I agree with what Callanecc says, but there are also other issues which I was going to mention, which Callanecc did not, and which are probably not worth dwelling on now, if all editors accept Callanecc's advice, so that everyone concerned can get on with more constructive things. I should also like to express thanks to Wesley Mouse, who made a very good effort to bring a third-person's view of the dispute. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Update

The lede includes "He is the author of a book on Schulz's Peanuts"... at this point, I'm the author of three, and while Classic Peanuts: Great Moments can reasonably be overlooked (it was a small book included in a paint-by-numbers kit of all things), last year's The Snoopy Treasures (Thunder Bay Press, ISBN:978-1626864405) was a full, stand-alone release. Simply replacing "a book" with "books" should cover that. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. By the way, I got a copy of your Peanuts Collection and love it. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you... and thank you! --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Awards and nominations update

If we want the "awards and nomination" section can stop being just nominations: The Independent Book Publishers Association just found my The Snoopy Treasures worthy of a Gold Award in the category of Coffee Table Books at their Benjamin Franklin Awards. This can be verified here (or at least it will be possible once they fix the site, it was working yesterday) --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done--Tenebrae (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Checking if it works

Hi Nat ! I am from Paris. I speak english. Does it works ?--Jean-Louis Swiners (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

If you mean "does posting to this talk page work?", yes it does, but if you want to reach me, you'd do better posting to User talk:NatGertler --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

A recent set of edits stripped out a lot of information and left chunks that remain stripped of proper grammar. The edits seem to be motivated by a misbelief that first-party sources can never be acceptable, but WP:SELFSOURCE makes it clear that such sources can be used for much information that is neither contentious nor boastful. Where I was born, where I've lived, that I have a family - those would all seem to fall into those categories. The stuff sourced to my "official bio" that might not meet that are largely that I started Simon's Rock at 14 (that can be verified in this alumni magazine where I am listed as "Nat Gertler '79"; Simon's Rock lists student classes by entry year, not graduation year) and that my sister is Professor Brie Gertler - which is true, but I cannot quickly point to any source to prove it.

The claim that I wrote for various books in the Idiot's Guide series can be easily verified at Worldcat.

The edits have left bits of awkward phrasing:

• and his books about comics as Schulz's Peanuts
• He is a two times nominee of the Eisner Award (on 1999 and 2006 respectively)

("two-time", "in 1999", and the word "respectively" is meaningless here)

I request that some other editor review these edits, and see which should be undone. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC) (who has pulled himself out of a hard-fought Wikibreak to address this.)

Nat I'm working on other stuff too, if you can make this simpler for me to fix, let me know, but my sense is (based on a cursory look) that many of the changes are reasonable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I've re-added the hometown information. Barring any contradictory sources, the subject's official site is satisfactory as to where born/raised. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

And I've added The Snoopy Treasuresto the bibliography, and a cited sampling of his many Complete Idiot's Guide books.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted an edit by User:Anonpediann. Instead of following WP:BRD and coming to the talk page to reach consensus with other editors, he began edit-warring by reinserting it. I asked him in my edit-summary to please respect BRD and to come to this talk page to try to reach consensus with other editors.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I am amused by the claim that the information was "subjective"; if it said that I was a handsome lad leading a bucolic existence, I could see the concern, but "Riverton, New Jersey" is a pretty objective thing. If there is concern about whether a third-party source would report on such things as where I live, where I went to college, where I live, whether I have kids, well, here's the Ventura County Star covering that information. As to whether such information rises to the level of import to include in the article, that's up to editors other than me, of course, but it seems to me that brief "early life" and "personal life" sections are fairly standard in Wikipedia. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Excellent. I'll add the Ventura County Star cite when I have more than just enough time to pop in! And, yeah, I'm surprised by some of the claims that editor made. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

And, belatedly, done!--Tenebrae (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Another potential source

This Newsweek article just came out about me and my Negro Motorist Green Book efforts. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Done! And may I say, what a worthy project. My hat is off to you, sir. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Tenebrae, but put the damn hat back on. It's chilly out there! --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Not dead yet

May I suggest a grammar change in the lead, from "He was nominated for two Eisner Awards" to "He has been"? I am still alive, the Eisners are still ongoing, and it is theoretically possible that I will be nominated for further awards in the future, so "has been" is the appropriate tense. -Nat Gertler (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done though this is a non-controversial request that could've been done by yourself. {{replyto|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 01:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Conflicted edit

I obviously have a huge womping COI on this page. However, today's edit is the simple updating of a number which is a flat fact: the number of Peanuts books I've written has reached four, with today's release of Be More Snoopy from DK Publishing. I am not adding that to the bibliography, as my doing so may be seen as promotional, but a simple number should be kept accurate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Update suggested

The first sentence should be updated to reflect that I've written five books on Charles Schulz's Peanuts, with the release of Be More Charlie Brown yesterday, which can be verified here. (And yes, I know that I could edit that myself, but I'm trying to maintain my retirement from article editing. After many years editing obsessively, it's for the best.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Further update request

As of today, I've now written six published books about Peanuts. I request that the mentioning of "four" in the introduction be updated to "six", and recommend that the latest book, Charles M. Schulz: The Art and Life of the Peanuts Creator in 100 Objects (ISBN 9781681888606, co-written by Benjamin L. Clark, Weldon Owen, 2022) be included in the biography section. (My involvement with this book can be confirmed via the cover image on the publisher's website.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)