Talk:Nat Gertler

Conflict of Interest edit requests

Three requested edits:

• In opening sentence, including four on Charles Schulz's Peanuts. --four should be changed to six. :
• Since the last updating of that sentence, two additional books have been published, Be My Charlie Brown and Charles M. Schulz: The Art and Life of the Peanuts Creator in 100 Objects:
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): Be More Charlie Brown catalog listing,article on Charles M. Schulz: The Art and Life of the Peanuts Creator in 100 Objects
• Last sentence of intro, Gertler made a guest appearance on the comic review show Atop The Fourth Wall as himself. should be deleted due to its trivial nature. (If you want a Wikipedia reason to delete it, it's an unsourced statement in a BLP. It's true, mind you, but unsourced, and not a lead-worthy item. I've made appearances on/in many things.)

• At bottom of Selected works: Books section, add: Charles M. Schulz: The Art and Life of the Peanuts Creator in 100 Objects (written with Benjamin L. Clark and The Charles M Schulz Museum), Weldon Owen, 2022 (ISBN 9781681888606)

Nat Gertler (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

References

 Done PK650 (talk) 02:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

New photo available

Nat Gertler

I have made a more recent photo available for use.

I leave it up to others whether this should be included. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Updating for new Eisner Award nomination

• In the intro, update He has been nominated for two Eisner Awards. to three Eisner Awards.
• At the end of the "Awards and nominations" list, add 2023 Eisner Award nomination: Best Comics-Related Book Charles M. Schulz: The Art and Life of the Peanuts Creator in 100 Objects by Benjamin L. Clark and Nat Gertler

Thanks! -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC) Nat Gertler (talk) 17:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Reply 28-JUN-2023

  Unable to implement  

• The specifically nominated Eisner Award's Wikilink has not been included with the request. Please provide the Wikilink to the award's Wikipedia page.

 Spintendo  01:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@Spintendo: I am missing how that is at all needed to implement the change. That specific category does not yet have a Wikipedia page. I cannot make said page because of an obvious WP:COI. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Never mind. Given that this edit has been requested on the Talk page for over a month with no objection to its content (and only a nonsensical one to its formatting), that it includes a sourced correction, and that it contains nothing out of nature with the article as it existed, I have gone ahead and made the edit, despite my WP:COI (Even if we are to accept the concept that it should include a wikilink to a non-existent page,. requested edits should not be rejected simply for not being perfect; they should only be rejected for not being improvements, much as with any other edit.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

And just to make sure I'm meeting every requirement where I can: My conflict of interest with regard to this article is that I am its subject. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, I don't get pings when I use my cell phone. With regards to your question, by their very nature, awards can be subjective, in that they represent a very specific point of view: that of the individual or organization which determines who wins the award and why. To counter this, a good approach is to limit the listing of awards to only those which are independently notable in Wikipedia. What I'm asking for is not due to WP:N (which I need not remind you, is not a content requirement). The request for notability in this case is to ensure WP:NPOV. The adding of several points of view to an article in the form of non-notable awards may skew an article's balance. Thus, this reviewer's own practice is to limit the listing of awards to those which are independently notable in Wikipedia. It's all right if you have difficulty understanding this—having a COI is similar to a blind spot, which prevents a person from recognizing interests which may be conflicted. I don't believe that the request that I made of you asking for the award to be notable in Wikipedia is anything out of the ordinary. Say 6 months from now, the award gets its own page. No harm done. But for some, that wait may seem like an eternity. Is that FOMO occurring in someone's own article—I doubt it, but it wouldn't be beyond the realm of possibility. I just try to do my best. Regards,  Spintendo  06:54, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

While the specific category does not have a page, the Eisner Awards were already linked on the page, and thus should not have been linked again for overlinking. You could have noticed that fairly easily, as my requested changes specifically included incrementing the number of nominations, indicating that the Eisners were already covered in the article. Or you could have taken less time than it took to respond to enter Eisner Awards into the search box to verify that the Awards do indeed have their own page. (Indeed, my previous Eisner nominations were considered of enough note that they were why this page was not deleted . This is not just a matter of "FOMO", whatever spin you may want to put on it; there was a no-longer accurate number sitting on the page. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 12:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I think your ideas on what could have reasonably been done to expedite the request are a terrific start, and much appreciated. When presented with what seemed to you to be an interminable delay, you could have said to yourself, "You know what? That's fine. It can wait. I feel okay with it not happening now, because I know having distance between me and the article is not the opposite of good. This isn't a rush job, and when it happens, it happens." A very idyllic response which unfortunately did not occur. You would brook no such delays. You wanted that award added according to your timetable, not anyone elses. It had to be done immediately, so much so, that you went ahead and made the change yourself — and after it was implemented, you then patted yourself on the back with a "Yay!" for your efforts — such was the exhilaration you felt at being able to calm ever-present suspicions that the article wasn't being updated quickly enough. I'm certain that when you look at your actions surrounding that edit, and the sense of urgency which drove it, you would find absolutely no issues of concern whatsoever. Others might come to a completely opposite conclusion.  Spintendo  14:59, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the bullshit you are spewing about what happened is far from reality. First of all, rather than "would brook no delays", I waited more than a month for any response to my requested edit.... and then the response was rather nonsensical. Having faced no real objection to the inclusion of the nomination (you voiced none, just to the lack of a link), I did go ahead and add the nomination... but that is not what the "Yay!" you're pretending was in response to actually addressed. After I won the award, I did add a request for such an edit here on the Talk page, and after that someone who is not me added that information to the article (although not using my wording), which the Yay was in response to.

Both this talk page and the article itself have History tabs which you could have consulted before staging your unfounded attack. They would have given you the exact same information I have given you above, and would've spared you posting your embarrassing post.

(There was no "timetable" in place after your inappropriate denial of the addition of the nomination, as you had marked the request as "answered" so that no appropriate editor would come by to see the request. You didn't happen back by the page until weeks later, interestingly quite shortly after I corrected your policy claims elsewhere.)

If you wish to take me to WP:COIN, go ahead. There's the link for you. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Updating for the Eisner Award win

The awards have been held, and the article should likely be updated to reflect the result. In the Awards and nominations section, the line

• 2023 Eisner Award nomination: Best Comics-Related Book Charles M. Schulz: The Art and Life of the Peanuts Creator in 100 Objects by Benjamin L. Clark and Nat Gertler

should have the word nomination deleted. this page can be used as reference. The closing sentence of the introduction should also be updated -- I recommend "He has been nominated for Eisner Awards in three different categories, winning in 2023 in the category Best Comics-Related Book.", but obviously the phrasing of this is where my lack of neutrality comes into play. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

And that matter has now been taken care of! Yay! -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Category suggested

Can some editor review whether this article belongs in Category:Eisner Award winners and, if so, add it. (There is no subcategory for the specific award which I won. although it could be added.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Erroneous Big Bang credit

I raised this years ago, but it was in the midst of a spate of other requests and got overlooked: the mention of me haivng written for Big Bang issues 7 through 8 should just be 8. As this comics.org listing shows, what was attributed by that site to me in issue 7 was just an ad for issue 8. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)