User talk:NatGertler

good ~2026-38215-4 (talk) 12:44, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

??? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:50, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Please be aware it is kemi olunloyo herself that is editing her own page adding self glorifying adjectives to increase her social media business. This page has a long history of her editing it to her liking, just thought you should be made aware, the reversions are necessary due to malicious self glorifying editing of her own page. Take care ~2025-38557-85 (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I would consider the possibility that the other editor at Talk:Ken Silverstein (business journalist) is using LLMs to generate their replies, given the cadence of their comments and the fact that their citation of Wikipedia policies is contrary to their meaning. Katzrockso (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I have already leaned into that as a possibility, which is just part of why I made my latest move to simplify response. Thanks for the concern. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

While we're at it, I think we should possibly consider filing an WP:AINB for further opinions on what to do about the LLM where necessary. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:14, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary regarding that article. Any material that editor added to the article had already been removed, and the discussion seemed to have reached a stopping point before 3O was sicced on it. ("Absent that, there is nothing further to address here.") Their edits only concern one other article, a submitted draft, if you wish to look into that. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, Nat, I'll go try checking into that draft and see what can be done in this case.

One thing's for certain: editors with good intentions (including myself) can make some mistakes all the time, especially when it comes to trying to help resolve any discussions. Also, as usual, I want to thank you for your efforts in improving Wikipedia. Regards, sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:50, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Having just checked out the article and its relevant logs (specifically the deletion ones), I suspected the user who created it was a sockpuppet of the indef-blocked user 65sugg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (the SPI is here). Sorry for the trouble. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:10, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for filing that. I might be spared his attempts to mess with the article about me. Be well, and may all your edits be good ones! -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, and may all your edits be good ones as well! Like I said, there are no hard feelings. Also, let's hope there aren't any issues between us based on misunderstandings. Best wishes, sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:37, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

For moving Suicidal empathy. That was a helpful move that I hadn't even noticed needed doing until you did it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:42, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing in the good fight on that. On to the next! -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

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)

@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:

Add a timestamp at the end of the brief statement, using either ~~~~ (username, time, and date) or ~~~~~ (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)

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 Add a timestamp at the end of the brief statement, using either ~~~~ (username, time, and date) or ~~~~~ (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)

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)

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)

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: San Diego Wikimedians User Group ( US-SAN )

Your host: RightCowLeftCoast (talk · contribs)

Please add your username to our attendees list so we know how many will be attending, due to limited space available.

(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.)

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)