User talk:Hertz1888/Archive 5

New Gate elevation

Jerusalem itself is at an altitude of 750 m, so I don't think 790 m is so impossible if one is measuring elevation at the top of the gate and not its base. However, I have to agree the source I used was not the best Koakhtzvigad (talk) 06:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

If you look back you will see that the "impossible" value that I replaced (by restoring the previous figure) was 265 meters. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

But you also restored 790m back without a ref?!Koakhtzvigad (talk) 09:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It's reasonable. It's in the proper range for the entire area. It accords nicely with Google Earth. You seem to have put it there yourself without citing a reference (but the figure came from somewhere). Surely you're not saying you prefer 265 m because it's "sourced" (albeit in a dubious document)? That would put the gate in a very deep hole in the ground. I don't see the point of pursuing this further. Hertz1888 (talk) 09:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The Public Policy Initiative Assessment Team Wants You!

Hi Hertz1888, I think you would be a positive addition to Wikiproject: United States Public Policy, and I was hoping you would be interested in assessing articles with the Public Policy Initiative. There is more info about assessment on the 9/13/2010 Signpost. If you're interested or just curious you can sign up on the project page or just contact me. Thanks! ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sequence in Harvard

Sir the sequence you put is annoying to the eyes, and is never called sequence. If you want to sequence the last name, change William Randolph Hearst TO Hearst, William Randolph. Thanks, and reply here before you revert AdvertAdam ^talk 02:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Look around you. Hundreds (probably thousands) of articles demonstrate the common convention for alphabetizing names. See, for example, List of people from Berkeley, California, List of people from Newton, Massachusetts, Harvard Law School#Notable professors, or Sharon, Massachusetts#Notable residents. Like it or not, that's how it's done here. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Sir, those lists are made randomly with the order of its edition. However, the author of this article ORDERED to keep alphabetical order. English standard rules say, you should use alphabetical order based on whichever is written first[1][2]. That's logic, and again, all those article don't have a particular order; whoever adds something adds it at the end. If you disagree, then lets ask the owner on the talk page. AdvertAdam ^talk 05:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't understand what you mean by randomly. The usual practice on Wikipedia is distinct and clearly different from the outside examples you cite. You have been reverted—twice. Per WP:BRD, if you choose to pursue this further you should take it to the article's talk page and seek editorial consensus for your change. (There's no "owner"). Any further discussion belongs there, not here. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

SORRY!

Sorry about that "Who's a Jew" page. I was teaching my brother how to edit a wikipedia page! Aleseandro (talk) 01:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Understood. A practice area is available at WP:SANDBOX. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The Davidka

Please visit the talk page of the Davidka mortar, and give me a detailed answer on the talk page. Megaidler (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Response given. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Removing Armstrong

Please accept my apology for inadvertently removing that paragraph. Someone calling themselves "Wtshymanski" made a cross-edit to my work while I was working on the article and things got confused. GPeterson (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I suspected it might have been inadvertent. I'm glad there's no animosity involved. Poor Armstrong didn't get enough appreciation in his lifetime, at least not from RCA, with tragic consequences as we know. Thank you very much for your communication here. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Response from jedoeller

Thank you for your note concerning conflict of interest. I am very aware of this issue and am trying very hard to remain neutral in my edits. I hope I am successful.

Good evening

I saw that you removed "Israeli settlement" from the MH ski resort article, there is agreement to have both Israeli settlement and moshav at the talkpage, please respect that. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Temple Mount

Hello, Hertz1888. You have new messages at Steven J. Anderson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Paul Revere controversy

Hello,

Have you guys considered redirecting users from "Paul Revere" to "Israel Bissell" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Bissell)? Or, more pragmatically, at least to include mention of him in the Revere article? In HBO's "Assume the Position," Robert Wuhl claims that Paul Revere only went 19 miles from Boston to Cambridge, and that "the only person he could have warned was the dean of Harvard." Don't know if that can be confirmed, but it seems worth noting.

Thank you for maintaining the integrity of this site!

Joey Basu, West Lafayette, IN 98.222.194.255 (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Considering that Revere's ride altogether covered about 16 miles (to the point of capture 4 miles beyond Lexington), Wuhl is either parading his ignorance or being deliberately absurd. Revere didn't go through Cambridge at all, and if he had, the distance by land would have been something like 8 miles. I have added a link to Bissell in the Revere article's "See also" section. Thank you for the suggestion. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Unreferenced material on Revere page.

Hello, thank you for your interest in the edits I made on Paul Revere. While I realize my removal of the unreferenced information was a bold edit, I feel strongly about keeping controversial articles clean of material that is not properly cited. This is not something I feel a need to keep repeating into any form of edit warring but I felt you deserved notification that I have removed some of the material again. As I have adopted this page now, I will be furthering it with more information and reliable sources. I was directed to this page from a political debate I was reading on another site and it was clear that people were using Wikipedia as a baseball bat or battering ram with unreferenced material that I decided to challenge as I read the article. While much of the information may well be accurate, too much was unreferenced. My intent is not to simply remove but to continue editing with source material as i find it. I am in no particular hurry and I would hope you are not as well. Please feel free to add any input you may have for me at my talk page.

Mark --Amadscientist (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

H, keep on fighting the good fight. More power, and less Palin, to you. Sara Palin is not a reliable source, no matter who publishes her. For all we know the LAT may have published her rants just for the level of hilarity so engendered. - Denimadept (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Removed a comment that I mistakenly placed on your page. Wrong person!--Amadscientist (talk) 03:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Paul Revere talk page templates

Hey Hertz,

I saw your reversion of User:MZMcBride's template changes to the top of Talk:Paul Revere. While I'm not going to revert I would urge you to think about the other side. His change is the perfect example of ignoring rules that make it impossible to do the better thing for the specific case and the project as a whole. We have a lot of new users going to that page and a load of template that, as you admit, aren't very welcoming. By hiding them MZM has actually found a very nice way to keep the functionality (which is almost only for experienced users and just confusing for new users) while providing a more welcoming message for the high level of new users. James of UR (talk) 08:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

A supplementary note, specially crafted for the purpose (not the user talk template), can be added if one wishes without concealing essentials that should remain visibly displayed. Note that these headers give ground rules, such as that a talk page is not a forum for general discussion, more important at this time than ever. Hertz1888 (talk) 08:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I admitted no such thing. I said they were not entirely about welcoming. There's a difference. Hertz1888 (talk) 08:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Will do! Please have a wonderful day, and sorry for the trouble. --A.S. Brown (talk) 02:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you again for all your help! Very much appreciated. I think I know all to do the duplicate refs (which is rather tiresome to give refs for every single sentence one writes, but the moment you leave a sentence without a ref, somebody always sticks a fact tag on it), but I must confess that I am a techno-peasant, who struggles with technology, so please have some patience with my inept efforts to master the system:). Thank again for all your help, and please accept my apologies for any trouble I may had caused.--A.S. Brown (talk) 02:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

You are very kind. No trouble, just teamwork. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about my continuing blunders. I was going to that yesterday, but other things got in the way. Thank so much for all your time and help.--A.S. Brown (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Notzrim

Thanks for your edits, you may want to check out the Talk page and history. (Alternatively: a short-cut to the problem affecting page: the words "though this was not always the case" inserted in front of 3 dictionary references which say no such thing). Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know enough about the subject to be helpful, and also lack access to the reference books. Very best wishes. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Exodus

I've removed the image entirely as original research and POV, for context see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drnhawkins/An alternative view of the 3rd dynasty of Egypt and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drnhawkins/Moses and the Israelites served Amenemhet III during the 12th dynasty of Egypt. Glad to see the other reversions. Dougweller (talk) 08:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I see I stumbled upon a much deeper problem than first met the eye. Thank you for your able handling of it. I think a topic ban might be appropriate if the misbehavior persists. I wish I had time to say and do more. All the best, Hertz1888 (talk) 09:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Hertz. I thought I would inform you that Magnagr is again adding extreme POV edits and very pro-Marconi bias on the topic of Radio. As of August 6, he has added the same 5 edits to the article Guglielmo Marconi which last month were seen on the article Radio. I am wondering how we should go about addressing this reoccurring issue that Magnagr insists on pursuing. It seems every week or two, he cuts and pastes the exact same POV material and re-posts it. I await for your response.Yoganate79 (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Magnr DId It Again

Now what? Yoganate79 (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The persistent POV-pushing, belligerency and disruptiveness seem obvious enough. He was blocked briefly only recently for disruption. If you are convinced his edits (in both articles) are in violation of an existing consensus—and if I recall rightly, such is the case—then I would encourage you to escalate action, perhaps by seeking a longer block or a topic ban. I will do what I can to help, but am unable to be deeply involved in the matter at this time. Some guidance is to be found at WP:DIS and WP:CON, if you need it. In addition, edit warring can be construed without a technical violation of 3RR, and if "every week or two, he cuts and pastes the exact same POV material and re-posts it", as you put it, that would seem to qualify. There are ample possible issues of balance, sourcing, undue weight, tendentious wording, etc., though whatever we do, we will likely be branded and dismissed as Tesla-philes. I will monitor whatever you choose to do and try to help, as time permits. Please keep me posted. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem

That's one of the funniest edits I've seen in a long time. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey!

I hope you are still keeping an eye on the Hebron article. Now that I'm back I'd like to give it a thorough reworking. I see the article as basically about 4000 years of history, with due regard for modernity, but that it shouldn't suffer from recentism, with a proliferation of newspaper reports on incidents, or politics. I.e. I'd personally like to see the recent history as cut back to just some general points, settlement, a generic note on the violence on both sides, the Oslo accords, and shift the incidental stuff, mainly the result of POV warring to 'achieve balance', over to that other article on the Arab-Israeli conflict in Hebron. I know this second article leaves much to be desired, and needs a clean up as well. But sub specie aeternitatis my feeling is one can't allow, however bitter relations are in these places, for a general overall view of the history of a town to be smutched by newspaper accounts of overly specific incidents. To do this, however, is 'tricky' and I trust your judgement, a very fair and precise one over the years, with more depth than mine there, to give advice on this. Any counsel would be most welcome. Best Regards Nishidani (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

First of all, welcome back. I am happy to see you emerge from your "semi-retirement". Second, please forgive my slowness in replying. I was away from home base and unable to edit properly, and since returning am finding available editing time scarce. Thank you very much for your kind words. I will look in on the article as soon as possible, review what you have done, and continue to monitor as time allows. Though I lack your detailed knowledge of the subject matter, I will try to assist in maintaining reasonable balance and perspective. I think no one could argue (though some will try) that so ancient a city as Hebron, especially, merits a long view. Your formula outlined above sounds like a sober path to achieving such a view. Very best, Hertz1888 (talk) 09:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Nice page, quiet, no snoops, so one can reply. Arbcomers were generous, and those of us who have been reprieved must hold ourselves to higher standards, esp. in that area. I regret to see 8 hours work defaced in two minutes on one page, but, while I can ban myself, were I to accept your counsel, that indeed would look farcical, as though I were a self-constituted anarchic Arbcom all on my own! I hardly think my liberties extend to self-amnesty. Well, I've gone half way and infringed my self-ban, but your courtesy (as offriorob's) deserved the risk of a (self-)infraction! See you in Sept, then! Best Nishidani (talk) 12:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh and one last thing. I've always been fascinated by Yosef Ben Yaacov Ezra, the Hebron dairyman, he would deserve a page on his own if only it weren't so damn hard to get details. I dearly hope someone has collected his reminiscences of life there. Like most exiles, he probably romanticizes and turns a blind eye to the harder side of life in recall, of course. When I get back I'll edit some more detail, but if you care to look up and add it, by all means jump the gun. See Bill Baldwin Samah Sabawi Journey to Peace in Palestine: From the Song of Deborah to the Simpsons Dorrance Publishing, 2010 pp.50-51. And now to silence.Nishidani (talk) 13:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

HD radio

Most of the HD radio entry is not sourced and is biased pro-ibiquity opinion, where do I get my shiny little silver star so I can edit the page without interference? I would like your response on my talk page, Thank you Betojoven 03:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Base transceiver station

Hello! I saw your request of speedy deletion. I'm so sorry, I didn't mean to put any spam on wikipedia. I was just trying to put some references of my sources. I'm new, I wish you will understand! Mmillo (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Now that you know the rules, I hope you will strictly comply. Those are clearly commercially promotional links, with little, if any, useful encyclopedic content. Thank you. Hertz1888 (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I hear you! Just for information: if I put a connection to the wikipedia page of the manufacturer, would that be acceptable? (as a reference of my sources) Mmillo (talk) 09:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, that would be an internal link (wikilink) to another article in Wikipedia. If so, it would only be a link. It could not serve as a reference, as WP cannot cite itself as a source. For more on what constitutes a reliable source, you might wish to consult WP:RS. Hertz1888 (talk) 11:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I ment! Thank you! Mmillo (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Corgis

I couldn't find a previous deletion discussion for that - you may know a different title for it (or got the wrong cat by mistake - I do sometimes). I've deleted it under A7, like NawlinWiki did earlier in the month. (Nearly drank that beer above...) Peridon (talk) 19:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of it and letting me know. You're not mistaken. A previous notice on the author's talk page, dated Aug. 3, and absence of history entries from that time, led me to believe an earlier version had been deleted, discussion or not. Happy to share that beer. Please help yourself! Hertz1888 (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Youtube Citiations

I noticed your revert on the Madison page. The particular paragraph was either vandalism or not notable, or in other ways crap, so I approve of the overall deletion, but I disagree on the stated motive. Youtube can certainly be a proper citation for documentation of a historical fact (if the video shows the fact happening), or if produced by a notable source (news broadcast = newspaper etc). If its a random guy's video blog though, then that obviously is a much weaker case. See :Wikipedia:Video_links and Template:Cite_video Gaijin42 (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification and for directing me to the relevant article, which I will read. I have seen YouTube citations reverted, along with blog entries, with the rationale that otherwise anyone could produce or post one, then cite it as a backdoor way of bringing commentary into WP. It is helpful to know the exceptions. Thanks again. Hertz1888 (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Jordan River

Hello! I edited the Jordan River article, adding that the Jordan river is the only river in Israel. You reverted this edit, saying it isn't so because of the Yarkon River. However, the Yarkon is not a river, but rather a creek (hence its Hebrew name, Nahal Hayarkon, as Nahal means creek in Hebrew). I suggest we re-place my edit, and change the article for Yarkon accordingly.

The problem with that is that the Yarkon River article would require extensive and fundamental changes, including the article's name itself, changes that should not be undertaken without a strong consensus on its talk page. I suggest instead calling the Jordan the longest river, or only major river, if such is the case, and leaving it at that. Even better if the statement can be reliably sourced. (By the way, please sign your messages on talk pages such as this. Thanks.) Hertz1888 (talk) 18:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Jerusalem

Hello. You reverted my edit with the comment: "Existing wording stable long-term outcome of numerous discussions; unilateral change unwarranted." While the current wording may have been stable for a long time, that's because the long discussions which have taken place to try to find a more neutral wording (one which doesn't represent one viewpoint as correct or factual) have all been run into the ground. As the the archives show, the current wording is unacceptable to many editors besides me. The current wording isn't the result of agreement, but of stonewalling. What is objectionable in my edit? It's chief effect is to replace the statement that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, which is a statement of opinion not fact (reliable sources argue the point), with the statement that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel under Israeli law, which is undisputed.     ←   ZScarpia   17:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

To you it's an opinion and a viewpoint, to others a fact. To you, the wording results from stonewalling, to others it's a matter of satisfying the mundane dictionary-definition criteria for what constitutes a capital. Regardless of the relative merits of the arguments, it is not for you or me to change the wording solo. Whatever is said or done, I'm sure someone is going to be dissatisfied. That dissatisfaction may even serve to indicate that a balance has been struck. It seems to me that the article devotes considerable space (some might say disproportionately) to the status as capital, so it isn't as if the counterarguments or context are being neglected. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

As far as Wikipedia is concerned, a fact is something which reliable sources agree on. Reliable sources dispute whether Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and therefore, as far Wikipedia is concerned, that is a matter of opinion not fact. Editors may have argued that Jerusalem's status conforms to one or more dictionary definition, but that kind of argument is a form of original research. There are, though, things that aren't really disputed, such as that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel under Israeli law and that most of the arms of Israeli government are in Jerusalem, and it shouldn't be beyond the wit of editors of good faith to come up with a form of wording that represents that accurately and has broader acceptance than the current wording. As a matter of interest, when was the last time you took part in the talk page discussion of Jerusalem's status?     ←   ZScarpia   20:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, this looks like more of the same old thing, with likely the same potential result. As I'm sure you know, WP is not restricted to things that aren't disputed. The article already amply covers views that diverge from the commonplace principle, accepted everywhere else, that countries choose their own capitals. I don't think it's original research to be guided by that.

My last post there was in April. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does describe things which are disputed, but it is supposed to present such things as points of view. Wikipedia is supposed to present facts. To restate, if reliable sources dispute something, then Wikipedia is supposed to neutrally present facts about the different points of view. What it doesn't do is present a point of view as a fact. As far as the status of Jerusalem goes, there are opposed viewpoints. Editors have no business trying to argue that one of the viewpoints is correct, which is what they are doing when they use the Israeli government's argument that countries get to choose their own capitals to argue that Jerusalem IS the capital of Israel. Also, editors have no business synthesising arguments from such things as dictionary definitions to argue that the Israeli position is correct. You call what the Israeli argument is based on a principle. The position of what we, for convenience, call the international community is also based on what it regards as principles: firstly the principle that, until negotiations are satisfactorily completed, Jerusalem is not part of the sovereign territory of any country, including Israel; secondly, the principle that unilateral attempts to change the status of Jerusalem, which includes Israel's proclaimed annexation and establishment of Jerusalem as its capital, are invalid. Both sides have their arguments. We can outline the different sides positions and the considerations they are based on, but, to repeat, if we start arguing that one position is correct or factual, as has happened here, we are failing to be neutral. If the article was to state something equally as non-neutral, but in the opposite direction, such as "Jerusalem is not part of the sovereign territory of any country but Israel disputes that" how would you react? Thanks for pointing out that you commented about the status of Jerusalem on the article's talk page in April.     ←   ZScarpia   22:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

A few final observations. It's not neutral to redefine words (or deny their ordinary meanings) for the sake of making a point, as has been done again and again in the talk page discussions, and as you appear to be doing. Sophisticated arguments can, and do, often ignore or obscure the obvious. Jerusalem as capital passes the "duck test". It's not just "the Israeli government's argument" that makes it so, it's simply the nature of what a capital is. Your attempted analogy (if that's what it is) is not a good parallel—no words are redefined. And with that I would like to wind up this conversation. Neither of us is saying much, if anything, particularly new, and I need to move on. Thank you for understanding that; best wishes. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Jerusalem as the Israeli capital does not pass the duck test: One of the characteristicts of a capital is that it is where embassies are. No country has an embassy in Jerusalem: https://www.science.co.il/Embassies.php Most of the embassies in Israel are in Tel Aviv. Claiming that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel is an israeli POV, and a violation of WP:NPOV. PerDaniel (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Zionism

Thank you for your note regarding my comment about Spinoza in the article "Zionism." I am glad for it to show up in a more appropriate place. Regards. Caleb004 (talk) 05:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caleb004 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Falafel". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by May 22, 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 11:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Falafel, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 21:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Thanks

Thanks for your help at Boston Marathon. Much appreciated. Lightmouse (talk) 18:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks II

I have already reported him to the adminstrators board. Is this guy ever going to let up? Yoganate79 (talk) 21:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

My edit at North–South Rail Link

Resolved

You seem to have mis-understood what I wrote at North–South Rail Link. I was saying that to go from bus/train lines that arive at Boston from South Station, to destinations along the Fitchburg Line (such as Waltham), you can bypass the need to transfer on the subway by picking up the Fitchburg Line at Porter. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

As the context is that of getting between the stations (or to one of them from the other's lines), and you did not mention either of them, the parallel was hard to see. I have reworded in a way I think will make the parallel more clear, and in accord with your intentions. Hertz1888 (talk) 08:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

My edit on the Brooklyn Bridge

How is this not specific to the bridge? Over 700 people were arrested... on the bridge! If it's due to citation, I understand. I'm not sure how to cite myself as a source having been present for the events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.168.168 (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You don't cite yourself; that is considered original research and is against the rules. It takes a third-party source. You can learn more from WP:RS. It is especially important to avoid unsourced commentary (editorializing). By the way, what does "kettled" mean?

In the long history of the bridge, this may be only a passing moment. Perhaps you can find a published source that indicates the significance of the arrests having taken place there rather than somewhere else. Being an encyclopedia, rather than a newspaper, WP tends to take a long-term view. I hope this helps. Hertz1888 (talk) 16:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

My edit on the Somerville Community Path Page

Hello,

I have been editing the Somerville Community Path Wiki page as part of an assignment for one of my college courses. I have extensively researched the path and met with a member of the Friends of the Community Path group, and I believe that the information that I've published is quite accurate. I have also tried to include references and links in accordance to the Wikipedia standards, and to incorporate the relevant information from the original entry. I also added my own pictures that I took on the path a few weeks ago. I'm wondering why you have reverted my edits to the original format, and what I can do to create a page that you feel is acceptable. Thank you very much, --Rbw1089 (talk) 00:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC) rbw1089

Please read your user talk page, the answers are there.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 01:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Jeff G. Also please read the edit summaries in the page history. Try to add any new, properly-sourced information you may have, bit by bit, using the existing structure, instead of trying to "create" a whole new page, in the process devastating the existing content. Proceed gradually in small increments and explain your edits. If you work on one section at a time the article can evolve and details can be discussed along the way; changing everything at once in a wholesale & heavy-handed fashion leaves little choice but to revert everything at once. Your photos are a positive addition, but do not make up for the overall disruptiveness of your approach thus far. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Got your Email about Kol Nidrei

... About how I had made stylistic errors, which you undid and then I put them all back, etc. Somehow your corrections coincided with the disappearance of about 3 hours work on that article(!!), so I was not in a particularly good mood when I tried to recreate what had disappeared. I see that you went back and re-corrected my punctuation errors (without any data being lost), and I am very appreciative. I might add that the Hebrew typing feature, although very clever, seems unforgiving of typos and is very vexing about some mixes of the Hebrew lettering and modern punctuation or other (non-Hebrew) characters. Notwithstanding my stylistic bad form, I spent a lot of energy on expanding that article. Sussmanbern (talk) 04:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Aptronyms

Sorry! I thought your clean-ups were on the newly added list items, not the original... such is the perils of having two alphabetized lists running in a row, hard to keep track and why I advocated integration or deletion from the outset. JesseRafe (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Understood. Perils, indeed, and I know your intentions were positive. Please forgive my overreaction. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hertz1888. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 19:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

History of radio

Hi there. My name is Al Cook and I'm the guy who just deleted Xania's personal attack against the entire population of the US on the Talk; History of Radio article. He says Americans should have a separate Wikipedia specially dumbed down just for them. I get my ass chewed just for calling somebody sarcastic. You can call an American any vile name you please and you are protected. Wikipedia stinks and its getting worse every day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.19.118 (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Baka, Jerusalem

Thanks, for this edit. Indeed I wasn't clear enough. Regards, Metzujan (talk) 10:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC) p.s. it was from the hebrew: " אבל שם זה לא נקלט, ובשלטים שהציבה העירייה נכתב "גאולים (בקעה)" , but too literally translated. שבוע טוב, Metzujan (talk) 10:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome. I seem to have come reasonably close, then. Thanks for letting me know. Kol tuv, Hertz1888 (talk) 10:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: F Word Censorship

I don't care about WP:CENSOR! I should not read the F Word. And don't "tough" me.

Largerthanlife147 (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Those are the rules we play by here. I didn't write them. Protesting to me won't change them. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Dome of the Rock

Thanks for taking care of that. I didn't want to make a third revert to the article. The other editor has been blocked for 24 hours. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Better this way. Saw that. Very best. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Input request

An edit you made 1 is being discussed and I would welcome the input of an experienced editor on this Talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict AnkhMorpork (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation. I hope to find time soon to properly study the ongoing discussion and take part, but am unable to do so immediately. Per a quick perusal, you seem to be holding your own there quite competently. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality Award

You have amended some of my edits but have agreed with others. It is reassuring that truly neutral editors exist. Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the coffee and your kind words, as well as for the previous invitation. I would like to say something helpful on the article's talk page, but am finding it difficult to find a point of focus. The discussion has drifted and evolved and become quite elaborate. I think you are handling your part well, and I am glad to see the section in question has been clarified and expanded without eliminating reliably-sourced material simply because it is seen as being too favorable or unfavorable to one party or another. Best wishes to you. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you check out my recent expansion of the Present Status paragraph [3] and advise me whether it adheres to WP:NPOV?
Best Wishes

AnkhMorpork (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Despite your amendments, NightW has expressed a desire to revert the entirety of my work. <1> Please advise.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus for mass reversion, and the 1RR precludes a repeat performance today, at least. I have left general comments on the Talk page. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Solomon's Temple

The 'we can easily imagine' made me look for a source, it was all lifted from a possibly fringe article at [4]. Dougweller (talk) 06:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Good catch. To me, the tone of that phrase suggested only unsourced speculation and improper voice. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Engvar

Thanks for the feedback on the British English! Wikimichael1979 (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for correcting mybad. Mugginsx (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

My Bad

Hello, Hertz1888. You have new messages at Milonica's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 23:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Hertz1888. You have new messages at Hertz1888's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

message below

The More articles

I am grateful for your work but I would like to ask a question? Is there anyway that the Bot work can inadvertently undo revisions made.

Several revisions I have made to all three articles have been removed and had to be "remade". I have no knowledge of how your software works and I am certainly NOT accusing you of any vandalism. I am just wondering if one program could inadvertently interfere with another.

This is only one of several examples: (cur | prev) 13:46, 20 February 2012‎ Mugginsx(talk | contribs)‎ m (31,455 bytes) (→The More family: linked Ley) (undo)

This morning that revision was gone and I had to make it again. This has happened several times. I am not a new editor, though I admit ignorance in the programming aspects of Wikipedia.

Any advice as to what might be happening or where I should go to see about this is appreciated. Mugginsx (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know which article you are referring to. It would help if you would link to it (& any others) using brackets, such as, for example, Katherine More, as well as giving me the date & time, as you have done. I looked at several articles' recent histories and saw no record of bot edits, nor of any other interference with what you are doing. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I will check. Mugginsx (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012

Hi, the reason I changed the date format was because Hertz is German and generally a dd mm yy format is used when dating people from Europe. Examples would be Einstein, Hitler and Podolski. Surely for continuity, the same date format should be used with Hertz? Regards, Mythical Curse (talk) 13:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC).

Date format by country also shows Germany as using the dd mm yy format. Mythical Curse (talk) 13:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC).

Hi, would you mind responding? If not i'm going to go ahead and edit the article again. Please can you tell me why the dd mm yy format should not be used. Mythical Curse (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC).

I appreciate your telling me, but it would be better to tell other editors as well by using the edit summaries to explain your intentions. I don't know what constitutes "strong national ties" per the policy at WP:DATE, and therefore recommend seeking general agreement on the article's talk page. The policy is very clear about not edit warring over the format. A fourth revert at this point would be in violation of the 3-revert rule. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

In your impatience you have already broken the 3RR. I would not want to see you penalized. Self-reverting promptly would remove the appearance of impropriety. As I mentioned on your talk page, consensus should be sought on the article's talk page (not this one). Hertz1888 (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

John Galt

Thanks for asking if I have any connection to the page John Galt Solutions, Inc.. The answer is no. I have this name because the book, Atlas Shrugged, made an impression upon me sometime in the 1980's and I have been using this moniker ever since. I am a member of the Uncategorized Task Force, Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories/uncategorized and I was merely bored and adding categories to articles I find interesting. Whoisjohngalt (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	For your hard work Shrike (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Thanks also for your honorable contributions. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks ...

... for the helpful tips on the Wikilinks. I appreciate it. Nice to meet you. See you around! Best regards: Cliff (a/k/a "Uploadvirus") (talk) 02:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Structure art

Please see User talk:Tedickey#Note similarities for discussion on this issue. - Denimadept (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does have the flavor of a school essay, and its submission by two newly-registered accounts tends to back that up. I'd say we are on solid ground continuing to revert on the basis of WP:FORUM item 3 and, of course, WP:OR. Best regards, Hertz1888 (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Jerusalem

Dear 1888, Any thoughts on the suggested changes? – SJ + 06:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Greetings, SJ. As you correctly noted, even the smallest of changes have previously set off endless wrangling. The existing wording and structure of the lede are the outcome of multiple rounds of discussion, often acrimonious, lasting weeks or months. It was, I think, generally accepted that further major changes would need new consensus. My referring you to the talk page was out of respect for that climate, and not on account of any dissatisfaction with your proposed changes. However, when I find the time (possibly over the weekend) I hope to examine your proposal in detail, and may suggest some tweaks.

I am amazed at the lack of contention or other response. You can probably take that as a tribute to the objective, non-controversial nature of your proposed changes. If no one weighs in to the contrary, over the next few days, I don't see why you couldn't proceed with the edit. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for the comments, and for the sig reminder. Somehow posting 'before & after's clashed with my 'sig here' reflex. Regards, – SJ + 07:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I sometimes think

I should notify you before I edit. I here give you, without threatening you with death by boredom, the right to bookmark my contributions. My senescence needs a, what the Japanese call a (bedside) tsukisoi, esp. a philologist like me ailing from alternate bouts of logorrhea or unorthographic decay. Thanks, pal. Nishidani (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your many contributions. You don't seem to do too badly overall. We all make misteaks now and then. BTW, they say there are two things we lose as we get older. The first is memory... and I forget what the second one is. Hertz1888 (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Mayflower

Thank you for the alert--we'll be taking care of this shortly! Redcknight (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help and careful reading of my students' work. This was a very productive review process for them, and I'm glad that their work is making a strong contribution to the page. Cheers--Redcknight (talk) 17:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Mondegreen

Shalom, Y'all!

Thanks for your quick(timely & -witted) edit of the Mondegreen article. I see that you are a mega-editor. I have a favor to ask: if you would, can you give me feedback on the Psychology section Mondegreen#Psychology, which I have done most of the editing on. Do you think it's useful, understandable, enough?

TIA, Bloody Viking (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Shalom, indeed. Pleased to meet you, and thanks for the cordial words and greeting. That section is easily the most sophisticated portion of the article. I'll do my best to give it a careful examination, and to comment, probably later today. Hertz1888 (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Paul, I found the section very helpful in giving insight into the role of cognitive filtering in generating Mondegreens. It is well-referenced and has a coherent tone and flow. It belongs in the article and anchors a deeper understanding. The Connor quote is not easy reading for a non-specialist, and could benefit from a brief introduction providing a partial translation into layman's language.

I would consider strengthening the section's first line with a change to "Human beings perceive in large part based on previous experience..." How do you reconcile this statement (or the existing one) with Pinker's view? Something more than "on the other hand" needs to be said about the apparent contradiction, provided that can be worded in such a way that WP:OR and WP:SYN are not breached, not that you would do that. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Hertz, I agree with you about the weakness around the Pinker quote. I actually disagree with him (and I think Sylvia Wright would have, too), but, in keeping with WP:NPOV, I didn't think I could remove it.

I will endeavor to develop an intro/explication of Connor's quote. This may take a while, as I currently have several pressing non-wikipedia matters to deal with ( where are my priorities, you might ask! :^)> ), including 3 young apple trees that need planting & a job offer that needs considering. I re-read Connor's lecture yesterday, and it makes me wonder whether there couldn't be some link between the Mondegreen article and some article(s) on psychology. Not many people are going to look for an article on Mondegreen by name, as most people have never heard the term, yet the phenomenon has something to teach us about how we perceive the world, as Connor's lecture makes clear. Bloody Viking (talk) 13:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings

Please see the Talk page discussion regarding this edit and provide your experienced input
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 23:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Best wishes, Hertz1888 (talk) 06:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

My apologies

I'm really sorry about the stuff with Porter. I fucked up, pure and simple. Full reply is on my talk page. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

No hard feelings. Apology accepted. I will reply shortly. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Date era style

I disagree with your sarcastic reprimand over changing the date era style. Please explain what "Era" in BCE en CE refers to? Why go the long way round in trying to explain what "Era" refers to instead of just saying it outright, BC and AD? As far as I am concerened your "prefered" date era style is broken hence the reason for the fix! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boetfaas (talk • contribs) 05:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The link provided, WP:ERA, leads to a section that identifies the styles in question as AD/BC, on the one hand, and CE/BCE on the other. Per that section: WP has no preference for either style, but one's personal preference is not a sufficient reason for changing the style established in a given article. Finding the existing style defective and in need of fixing is usually based on such personal preference. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Sunlight

	Sunlight
	My website is not SPAM it is a product to help combat larger companys trying to scam paying customers Clackdwack (talk) 09:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Feedback please!

Hi Hertz,

Hope you're well. I just wondered if you could give me a bit more info on exactly what it was that you deemed my own 'personal analysis' on the Baruch Marzel page....just so I know what kind of thing to avoid in future...

Thanks so much, Leika80 (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)Leika80. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leika80 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Greetings, Leika. Thank you for asking. According to my understanding of the underlying policies, WP cannot take sides on controversial issues, and consequently there are certain things we cannot have it say in its own voice. It can report what others say, when this is properly sourced and done in a balanced, neutral way. Even if you happen to be an expert in international law, it would be improper to say, for example, that Israeli settlements are illegal (as you did), without sourcing, including the context that this is disputed. You can learn more about the basic policies by reading WP:FIVE, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. Other restrictions apply, and this is only an outline, but I think it will head you in the right direction. WP:LABEL and WP:SYN might also be especially useful in guiding your editing. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I would not regard your edit as minor in scope or impact. Your marking of it as minor ("m") indicated a possible desire to mislead other editors. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I think I need to spend a decent amount of time reading the various guidelines and will take them all into consideration in future.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leika80 (talk • contribs) 12:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Temple Mount

Hi Hertz,

I updated the Temple Mount page, one user said the new content was copywrighted so I rewrote just to make sure it wouldn't fall foul anymore. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.154.185 (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

BC/AD dating system

You are wrong, my friend. Your attitude defies common sense and logical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.56.226.44 (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not my attitude, it's WP policy. Instead of displaying your ignorance, please read WP:ERA. Both formats are acceptable; it is not acceptable to change between them in any given article without consensus. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Possible interview about Palin/Revere edit war in June 2011

My name is Sara Marks and I am doing research for a masters thesis at Fitchburg State University. My thesis has to do with resolving conflicts on Wikipedia entries and I am focusing on what happened to the Paul Revere entry after Palin's comments last summer. I have been going through the archives and would really like to talk to you about what happened after her comments, especially your part in it. I want to get a better idea of what happened and your thoughts on the resolution process. You can get back to me on your talk page, my talk page or via email at librarygurl at gmail.com. I can also answer any questions you may have about my thesis. I look forward to hearing from you. --LibraryGurl (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

C. H. Workman

Hi. The image that you inserted into The Mikado is Workman as Jack Point in The Yeomen of the Guard. The Vanity Fair caption is, indeed, something that Nanki Poo says, but Workman never played Nanki Poo, and in the picture, he is clearly dressed as Jack Point. In any case, I moved the image to The Yeomen of the Guard. Happy editing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Oops. It appears I presumed too much. Thanks for knowing the difference, and for the courtesy of telling me. I'm glad there is a happy ending, with the image finding a good home. Best of Savoyard enjoyment. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for uploading the image! - Ssilvers (talk) 03:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Spider Rock

(cur | prev) 23:26, 31 May 2012‎ Hertz1888 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (8,092 bytes) (+46)‎ . . (→‎Gallery: Resolution isn't everything. Previous version is so much more spectacular, colorful and gorgeous. Can't see replacing it. Why not have both here.) The obvious answer would be: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a travel brochure. And of course WP:IG says images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. Now if you think colorful and gorgeous are measures of encyclopedic value... --Dschwen 21:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry I got carried away with the rhetorical question and my attempt to pay the photographer a compliment. How unfortunate if WP policy mitigates against showing the beauty of a scene. In my opinion, the previous image meets the criteria sufficiently, and there is no need to make a substitution. If two is too many and you have no objection, I will delete the new one. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I guess I started being the dick, so I cannot really complain too much about your reply. But please note my formal objection. Best. --Dschwen 23:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

As a post scriptum: It is just incredibly frustrating when you invest the work of creating a high resolution picture (over a hundred megapixel), documenting as accurately as possible the scenery and then someone basically trashes your work and claims a 0.8 MP oversaturated Flickr-style image (which seems to be more of a promotional vehicle to advertise the photographers website...) is better suited for an encyclopedia. This makes investing time into WP considerably less fun. --Dschwen 23:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Due to some confusion on my part I thought the 2011 image, which I wanted to keep, was also one of yours. I'm sorry about that mistake and about your hurt feelings. I hope you will not be discouraged by this one experience. No one else is complaining, and even I have stopped doing so.

I never intended to trash your work. In fact, I have tried to appreciate it more fully by clicking on it for a larger version, but get an error message. There may be more megapixels involved in a closer look than my computer (which is by no means primitive) can handle. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Try http://toolserver.org/~dschwen/iip/wip.php?f=Spider_Rock_1.jpg to view the image, it will load the data incrementally. --Dschwen 05:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

1 RR...

You warned me and reverted one of my edit recently for a 1RR that was concerning what proved 5 days later to be a NoCal100 which everybody had guessed but could not prove. That upset me but that's the rule. Would you agree to revert this 1RR even more given what this 'contributor' wants to insert is simply false. 81.247.83.224 (talk) 06:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Much as I would like to help, I am not familiar with the article in question, and am not seeing the violation you refer to. I don't recall interacting with you previously and see no record of such a warning; were you using a different account or IP address? Also, what is a NoCal100? Hertz1888 (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is what I refer to :

your action was to revert me who was reinserting material.

You told me that what I did was in contradiciton with 1RR.

I would appreciate that you do the same here given I cannot do this myself.

81.247.97.117 (talk) 16:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't do that. I would be contradicting the text, which says that the Lebanese army was involved. I prefer not to participate further in this matter. If you object to the content, you can bring it up on the article's talk page. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

When you reverted me in the History of Israel article, that was a 100% similar situation.

So I conclude that at the time, there was no 1RR from my side and you made a mistake.

By the way, maybe you should revert Frederico1234 here then.

And I don't think that the article say the contrary. Where ? It is written : "Over the next few days, Arab contingents from Egypt, Jordan, Irak and Syria intervened in Palestine and fought the Israelis. They were suported by corps of volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Yemen." 81.247.97.117 (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

"Operation Yoav and Hiram... On 24 October, the IDF launched Operation Hiram and captured the entire upper Galilee, driving the ALA and Lebanese army back to Lebanon." and "Borders... In 1949, Israel signed separate armistices with Egypt on 24 February, Lebanon on 23 March..."

End of discussion. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Why "End of discussion" ? You are upset because you have been trapped in having two different behaviours with 1RR according who is involved. As if you was right...

Here is one among numerous ways to source the 4 armies issue.

Thank you for the material in the article about the repeling of Lebanese army. I correct it.

FYI : Israeli started discussions of armistice with Lebanon because she invaded Lebanon during operation Hiram.

Now : end of discussion. You can archive... 81.247.97.117 (talk) 17:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I haven't been "trapped" into anything. That is entirely your interpretation. The 28 May reversion had an additional purpose, per the editor who reverted your edit first. You were not sanctioned, yet you seem to be carrying a grudge. You might do well to read WP:BATTLE before you cross the line further into hostile behavior. It is good you don't expect a further reply. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

More slowly vs slower

I can't disagree with you more. However, to avoid further conflict I will stop.

Do you also say "much more fastly" instead of "much faster?" I don't think so.

EoGuy (talk) 05:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

EoGuy (talk) 05:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Some of the sources say it's a matter for purists. Let's be purists. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Fastly is an exception, treated differently. If you want, I can find you the source that explains that. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

More on Slower vs. more slowly

Dr Richard Lederer, PhD in Linguistics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lederer says either is acceptable.

EoGuy (talk) 03:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

If you had known that ahead of time, I don't suppose you would have bothered going around changing every possible occurrence. Either may be acceptable, but that doesn't mean that changing from the latter to the former is an improvement. One way can still be better than the other—and is, I believe. I stand by my conviction, based on multiple sources (and my generally good ear) that strictly speaking, "more slowly" is preferable and grammatically more correct. I think all those writers of those dozens of articles tended to know what they were doing. I'm sorry to find you apparently so defensive about this, especially after your expressed desire to avoid conflict. If I have offended you, which was never my intent, I am sorry for that. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC). Revised 06:30 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Your annexation revert - see Talk

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jerusalem#.22null_and_void.22_does_not_equate_with_successful_de_jure_annexation Israel's illegal annexation was not recognized = unsuccessful attempt talknic (talk) 09:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Davis Square edits

Hello Hertz1888. As a new participant here at Wikipedia and someone with, it seems, some shared interests, I admire your experience and appreciate your contributions. So I bring this up, and offer a suggestion, respectfully.

For those just starting out, Wikipedia can be intimidating. A few accompanying comments you made to edits on the Davis Square article ("We certainly don't need two images of the same genre or a disruptive layout" and "Unconstructive") have an unnecessarily hectoring and dismissive tone. This doesn't serve to foster the collaborative effort that makes Wikipedia work. Good faith efforts by contributors should be welcomed even as they continue to be refined.

Your edits did improve the article... so, thank you.--Vistawhite (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for the delay. I wasn't sure how to respond. I do appreciate your letting me know your impressions, both positive and negative. The kind words are welcome, and per your critique I can try not to be intimidating. However, I cannot agree that the two comments you cited are hectoring (a form of bullying) or dismissive (a form of disrespectfulness). Those are two very strong (overly strong) terms. If you examine the edit I deemed unconstructive, I think you will see it was just that—a misunderstanding of the context and intended meaning of the deleted text, or possibly just mischievous. It is commonplace on WP for editors to revert changes without giving any explanation; unless there is obvious vandalism I try to provide one, and try to make it helpful. If the shoe does not always fit, that is inadvertent. Thanks again for your message, and best wishes for much happy and constructive editing on Wikipedia. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Historylover4

Hi, It seems like User:Historylover4 is deliberately vandalizing many Wiki sites, some of them edited by you like Jews and other sites as well like Demographic history of JerusalemTritomex (talk) 00:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, and thanks for the note. I have noticed the strongly POV edits. You may wish to add your comments at User_talk:EdJohnston#User:Historylover4 or communicate with other administrators. I will try to do my part as time permits. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem

Kiryat HaLeom project

the project of Kiryat HaLeom are planned to be finished in 20 years and including the all Government buildings and national institutions in one area. the israeli government signed an agreement with a Dutch architectural firm that will plan the whole area and finis him in 20 years process. At the same time an Israeli architects plans to rebellion of the project of entrance to the city in 5 years that should connect to Kiryat HaLeom from the northern side. a new government buildings that planned: Office of the Prime Minister, National Headquarters of the Israel Police, State Comptroller of Israel building, National Library of Israel, National Archives Building of israel, National Gallery building of Israel, and a building for the Israel guest House. a National boulevard will across the israeli parlament building to the National square including pedestrian streets and many parking spaces

please return it back. the project have allready started and some writers here are delet true facts about Israel because of hatred of Jews. thank you very much for the listening. פארוק (talk) 11:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I will not do that, for the reasons given in my edit summary. Please also see the previous editor's summary and the message left you on your talk page. There are too many problems with your English, including errors in basic grammar, spelling and capitalization. Your intended meaning is often unclear (making it difficult for others to fix the errors), and much of your writing (as in the sample above) lacks sourcing. You can't expect other editors to clean up after you in article after article. Please get help with your English, and have someone with advanced English skills check your edits before you save them in Wikipedia. I appreciate your desire to convey the information, but it has to be done with acceptable quality and reliable sourcing. Hertz1888 (talk) 15:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

my dear realy friend Hertz1888, i speak basic English and nothing more. If you saw that I had errors without meaning to so please try to help me. besides all this i want to tell you that i am 8 years in wikipedia and i never saw in the last time here such a hete to Israel or Jews. in the last week i recieve a E-mail from some writer here that telling me that a group of people here are try to delete readings section on Israel and delet Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. I just want you to knpow that some people here are tring to do everything to wipe Israel from Wikipedia or the map !. just look at the Talk page of Israel and see the hate. פארוק (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

None of my comments have been in regard to the content of your edits. My concerns are with the quality of your written English and the frequent lack of sourcing for the information you introduce. I am sorry to see that you are not focusing on these areas—particularly on getting help outside Wikipedia prior to posting. It is too much to expect that other editors will fix your writing. It would be very time-consuming to do so, even if what you meant to say was comprehensible—which is often not the case. Best wishes. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I love wikipedia. i am glad if you please help me to repair wronge words or language But I'll Promising to try the best. Thank you very much. פארוק (talk) 05:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to workshops on editing Wikipedia

Dear Hertz1888,

We are a team of researchers at the University of Oxford and AU Sharjah, researching the experiences of editors of content about the Arab world on Wikipedia. We are interested in your experiences of editing Wikipedia and are organising two events that we think you would be an excellent contributor to.

First, we are hosting an online wiki focus group about contributing to Wikipedia in Arabic and to articles about the Middle East and North Africa. We are interested in what barriers you perceive to exist in Wikipedia, how articles can be made better and generally what can be done to expand and improve Arabic Wikipedia and Wikipedia articles about the Arab world. This discussion will take place on a MediaWiki hosted at our institution and be available in English and Arabic. We will allow users to create their own discussion pages in addition to our discussions.

Second, we are hosting face-to-face workshops in Cairo from 21st-22nd October 2012. If you are interested in this we should be able to pay travel and accommodation costs for up to twenty participants. This workshop will cover similar themes to the online discussion but will allow participants to meet one another and benefit from being together.

We will take care of the organization and planning and all you have to do is show up and be ready to discuss. But if you would like to help shape some of the discussion themes in advance, please let us know. We have booked time in the workshops for Wikipedian-led discussions.

More details can be found by expanding our “Frequently Asked Questions” below.

We would be delighted to welcome you to either (or both) event. Please let us know (wikiproject@oii.ox.ac.uk) if you would like the opportunity to participate and we can send you more details.

Sincerely,

Mark, Bernie, Ilhem, Ali, Ahmed, and Heather

Dr. Mark Graham, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford; Dr. Bernie Hogan, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford; Dr. Ilhem Allagui, Department of Mass Communication, American University of Sharjah; Dr. Ali Frihida, National Engineering School of Tunis; Heather Ford, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford; Ahmed Medhat, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford;

Frequently Asked Questions

* What is the purpose of this project? This project is about who represents the Arab World on Wikipedia, and how the Middle East and the Arab world is represented on Wikipedia. We are studying Wikipedia through statistics, edit history data and personal experiences. Our ultimate goal is to help Wikipedia grow in size and fairness and do academic research on this topic. You can read more about the project here. From this page, you can also find a biography of the researchers. You may also want to see our interactive visualizations about Wikipedia. Who is funding this project? This project is funded by the International Development Research Centre (http://www.idrc.ca). This organization is funded by the Canadian government to improve infrastructure across the world, including online content. We have been working with the IDRC since June 2010. Why did you contact me? Because you’re awesome. In all seriousness, we have been looking through Wikipedia for active editors based on user activity in either Arabic Wikipedia or articles about the Arab world. We have not contacted everyone we could, but we contact people that we think will help to balance the discussion and help us (and each other) learn more about the state of Wikipedia. Do I need to participate in both events? Not at all. You are welcome to participate in both or just one. We recognise that it will be more convenient for some people to have online conversations and for others to speak in person. For some people it will not be practical to fly to the Middle East, but we still consider their contributions important and want to give them a voice in this work. Can I use my Wikipedia handle in the online discussion? You do not need to use any particular name on the online forum. All we need is a valid email address so you can register. You can post using your real name, your Wikipedia name or a completely different nickname, whatever allows you to speak your mind most effectively. What sort of travel funding will you supply for the face-to-face workshop? We have funding for travel and accommodation costs for approximately twenty participants depending on where they are coming from. If you would like to join us in one of the face-to-face meetings then we will do our best to get you there. The exact amount of support we can offer will depend on how many expressions of interest we get and their distance from the chosen venue. Can I get involved and help to organize sessions? Yes, but this is completely optional. Our first priority is organizing a space for people to attend, talk about Wikipedia, and discuss how to expand and improve it. However, if you want to help organize discussions, advise on venues or facilitate specific conversations, please let us know. The discussion we have already organised/planned will focus generally on barriers that people perceive to exist when editing Wikipedia either in Arabic or about topics related to the Arab world. But if there is any particular angle of conversation that you’d like to focus on and start a discussion about then please let us know and we can either incorporate it in the programme or let you lead that part of the conversation. Will the face-to-face meeting be public? The meeting won’t be open to the broader public in order to facilitate focused discussions about the topics of greatest concern. We will compile a summary research report of the discussions. People can choose how/if they want to be identified, and a draft version of this document will be circulated to everyone who participates. What if I don’t live in the Middle East or North Africa? We would still very much encourage you to participate in the online discussion. However, we think it is unlikely that we will be able to fly you in for the in person workshops. If you can pay your own way, we may still be able to provide you with hotel expenses. In short, talk to us and we will see what we can do. Will these events be in English or Arabic? Both events will be designed to accommodate English and Arabic speakers. The online discussion will have tracks for both languages and the workshops will have simultaneous English and Arabic sessions that you can choose between (as well as coming-together sessions to share experiences). Three of the researchers speak English as a first language and three speak Arabic as a first language.

OIIOxford (talk) 11:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC), tidied OIIOxford (talk) 10:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Hertz1888. You have new messages at Jim1138's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Hertz1888. You have new messages at Jim1138's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.