Hello again Hertz1888 and thanks for correcting the caption to the photo I added to the Porter Sq. article.
I wonder if I can ask you for some assistance.
I've just received notice that I haven't appropriately identified the license for the image so that it's usable on Wikipedia. I believe it should be in the public domain, but I'm not sure how to determine this. And if it is, I'm not sure how to properly indicate that.
The photo was from the CHS website:
http://www.cambridgehistory.org/imagecollection/rand-estate-1899-massachusetts-avenue
Would you have a moment to take a look and let me know if you think it's usable?
And, if so, could you let me know how to fix the info associated with the uploaded file?
Thanks,--Vistawhite (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. Happy to help. See references to 1923 here. It's probably just a matter of going back to where you uploaded the file and citing the antiquity of the photo as a justification for free use. Please let me know if that succeeds. If not, I'll assist in digging deeper. Cheers, Hertz1888 (talk) 22:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Mr Hertz, we deleted the pictures as what is written is not accurate. You can contact me (Lumir Hanus) or prof. Raphael Mechoulam just to prove that the changes are from us. Thank you. (unsigned, 10 October 2012)
Hello. I do not understand why you have removed my video of the Golden gate from the Golden Gate page in Jerusalem. Please reply to me at my Talk my talk page
Dear Hertz1888. First, I do not understand your comments about the quality of my videos. i checked them on Wikimedia and they work perfect. I believe that Videos are much better way to show places in Jerusalem than just Pictures, and that is why I am contributing my works to Wikipedia. I am constantly receiving comment and email from people that watch my videos that NOW they can understand the excitement of visiting Jerusalem and that is thanks to my videos.
As for the link to my site from the Video File. I believe this is Wikipedia way to say thank you for people contribution. Each page at Wikipedia has links directly to other sites that have contributed information or pictures. There are sites that share pictures from Jerusalem (and other places in the world) and they have links directly to their site where they make money from Advertising and also selling tours in Jerusalem (and other places in the world). At my site there is NO solicitation for business and NO advertising. the only think is that people can register so I can send them emails when I upload a new video. I AM MAKING NO MONEY FROM MY SITE!!!! and that is why people from all over the world follow me!!!
I hope this will convince you to restore my links.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Eran200—Preceding undated comment added 10:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply given on your talk page. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pleasure working with you, whoever you are.
Yours in urinary continence [1], EEng (talk) 03:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a "pisher" of a closing, but I know what you mean, as we fight the battles of the statue together. My compliments on your spirited overhaul of the article. It's a joy hearing from you. I don't know what I was doing up at 3 am the other morning (maybe I'm keeping Alaska time), but it was funny you should ask, when you were still up at 5 or 6. This editing business can get to be a major preoccupation, can't it.
The question still remains of which is the truer aspirational hub of the universe, Harvard or the Boston Marathon finish line; so many seem intent on reaching them. Cheers for now, Hertz1888 (talk) 05:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
as we fight the battles of the statue together
In the name of the President and Fellows, the nine River Houses, and the ghost of Charles W. Eliot, please keep your voice down! We can't afford any more do-gooders sniffing around the Harvard/Trilateral/Masonic conspiracy! [2] And no more using the secret handshake when people are watching, or I'll report you to the Grand Exalted Poobah. EEng (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC) P.S. Only because I suspect you'd care, I'm sorry to share this news of dark days. [3][4][reply]
Understood. Oh, man, I'm worried. In the name of all those august parties, mum's the word <laughing>. Samuel James Bridge... he isn't the one they called "the rude bridge", is he? Hertz1888 (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Um... I don't get it. Huh? EEng (talk) 07:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My ignorance is truly appalling. Nonetheless the fact that you had to point me to the answer led to a happy discovery. Notice who gave the dedication speech. Concord_Hymn#Legacy So I thought... hmmmm. [5] That's how these things happen.
Your fellow editor may need to use beta blockers due to stress on the heart while awaiting your interesting news about the North Yard "Delta." EEng (talk)
Standby, please. Help is on the way! Hertz1888 (talk) 00:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hee, hee. Gave you start for a second there, didn't I? The DAR material -- very interesting indeed. EEng (talk) 03:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you removed my blank lines. I tried repeatedly to get that text to allign itself with the photos! I have found this bug in WP before as the results of editing sections are not the same as after you leave the article and come back! Wow! I just asked the same question how to fix this at the Teahouse and returned to find it fixed. grrrrrrrr. Not at you but at the system causing me grief. Now the Teahouse helpers will be looking at the link to that section text wondering "what is this idiot talking about?". LOL Thanks! 174.118.142.187 (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. We all learn new editing tricks as we go along; all too often, it seems, with an "I wish I had known that sooner" reaction. (WP imitates life). Cheers. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. {{clr}} stands for clear, and can be useful in such a situation. Also, sometimes it helps to preview the entire page before saving an edit involving layout (among other things). Hertz1888 (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Jerusalem". 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 19 November 2012.
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. 20:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the 'Dead Sea' article to reflect the fact that the basin of the sea lies within the territory of three political entities (whether recognized as countries or not). Palestine may not be a recognized as a country but it is a fact that part of the Dead Sea's basin lies within the West Bank. Not including any information about this leads to the impression that all of the basin lies either within Jordan or within Israel, which is false. This is not a matter of politics but of geographical accuracy. How do you suggest we amend this?
The request for formal mediation concerning Jerusalem, 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.
My professor went to Nakba Day and all I got was this lousy t-shirt.
Remove the illegal Palestinian settlements sitting on Jewish land!
Two-state solution: One for the Jews and One for the Kurds, but none for the Arabs who live down the Lane
Help the Palestinian prisoners maintain their hunger strike!
Don’t wall them out Fence them In!
When this drone is a rockin’, we’ll come a-knockin’!!
We switched your 72 virgins with a 72 year -old virgin!
Is this just "skepticism about the concept" or an extreme
demonstration of an anti-Palestinian hate text, with much pride
of his own "inventions" ?
Would'nt "anti-Palestinian" describe better this set of "jokes" ?
Maybe you could suggest a better word than "skepticism" for that text
or otherwise change that definition by adding "non-skeptical" citations such as the
ones in bold above ? Thanks !
Rastiniak (talk) 05:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)rastiniak[reply]
An example? Your soapbox is showing. You seem to be intent on proving a point. What is reliably sourced is what counts in Wikipedia, not opinions about what the sources demonstrate. Possibly even the description as "skepticism" is not mild enough, but it is an effort to steer the wording toward neutrality. I suppose the op ed might be described neutrally as satire without stretching a point. Please use the article's talk page for further discussions, so that others might take part if they so choose. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed anti-Palestinian. I reverted to the right version. There is a talk page where you can get a consensus but I strongly oppose to your use of "Nakba concept". Pluto2012 (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please use the article's own talk page for further discussion rather than continuing here. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing you're more familiar with copyright issues than I am, so I hope you won't mind my suggesting this task.
The image here [6] might go great with the images of the statue and Hoar already present. If you agree, then can you work through any copyright issues related to an upload to Commons? This [7] implies copyright, but the image's presence on usstampgallery.com seems to imply no copyright, assuming usstampgallery isn't a USPS site (though it's hard to tell). I don't see use in the statue article as coming under fair use. EEng (talk) 17:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to look into this very soon, and hope you are not in a rush. I am a bit backlogged (& have, for example, yet to respond to your query re Phineas Gage). Have you seen this resource? Looks like a great source of information & at least one quotable quote (Craven's). On the trail of Bridge, this source offers more background, such as the date of his honorary degree.
How I laughed—at great length—at your perfectly phrased, deadpan comment "the good old days" regarding the 1674 flogging of a student, preceded & followed by prayer. I would not be at all surprised if the punished offense was that of dozing off during a three-hour sermon on piety and virtue. Thanks for the laughs. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Funny -- I ran into monumentsandmemories.com just about the same moment you were posting your message above -- it's in my folder of bookmarks-to-transfer-to-talkpage. I don't think it can be used as a citable source (except maybe temporarily) but it certainly has pointers to good stuff, subject to confirmation at the source it cites e.g. the suggestion that the (a?) title of the statue is The Puritan Scholar.
Personally, I'm most tickled by Life Mag's "Memorial Hall, a huge Victorian Gothic barn..."
Now then... You might be aware that Found5dollar, who originally created the statue article, nominated it for "Did You Know?" I guess they held it in limbo for a long time because they consider cite-needed tags to be shameful (they'd rather just throw text away -- see edit summary at [8], the weird discussions here Template:Did you know nominations/John Harvard statue and here Template Talk:Did you know nominations/John Harvard statue, and -- believe it or not -- this evaluation of my (and your) efforts [9]). Anyway, it looks like it's gonna get its link on the main page at 11am (Boston time) on Tuesday November 27.
I think the article is in very good shape now, but there are still things I'd like to do before it moves into the spotlight. So can you keep your sharp eyes on the page as much as you can (and of course contribute too if so moved) between now and then? -- and I hope you won't mind my "assigning" you some tasks? In order I plan to work on --
Further abridge and better integrate the Greene letter. It's excellent, the best presentation I've seen on "founding", but it's a bit long and it's weak on the statue being "ideal" rather than a likeness.
Expand discussion of "ideal". There's a fascinating subtext to those discussions back then -- no time to exlain now, but watch this space.
One thing I certainly won't have time for is formalizing the cites with templates. If you feel moved to do that it would be a big improvement to the article. Again, I hope you don't feel I'm bossing you around -- I don't think you do, but please speak up if I'm wrong.
Important: We should not add the stamp image now -- even hint of a copyright problem the article will get the article dropped from the DYK queue like a hot potato.
The real world has been relentless today so I've done just about nothing since my post above. I should get something done in the next few hours/overnight so if you can be sure to give it a looking over early Tuesday morning to be sure there's nothing embarrasing I'd really appreciate it. EEng (talk) 03:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. If any of the citation needed tags can go, they should, overnight. Yo ho, goalward bound. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to go; very nice work. With the spike in exposure I am prepared to see some vandalism. Everyone, it seems, likes to tease Harvard. Any pies in the face of John Harvard will be promptly countered. Hertz1888 (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't you an admin? If so, and there's substantial vandalism from IPs, you might consider semi-protection (that blocks IPs only, right? -- because -- CAREFUL -- I'm just an everyday user so don't lock me out!). As I think you know I'm very careful in my edits, so that every new version is one that's OK for display (a couple in the last 30 minutes being embarrassing exceptions -- but those were before it went "live" to main page -- I'll be extra careful from here out) -- I do want to add some additional footnote material, so please keep looking over my shoulder to the extent you can. I think it remains on main page until 7pm Boston time (which is where I assume you are). EEng (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC) P.S. You don't have "email this user" enabled, but I do. Don't you think it's time we "met" -- we could then exchange phone #s and thereby discuss further changes by phone. Strictly up to you, of course. If you do email, then post here to tell me so I'll know to check my email.[reply]
I think it would be a fine idea, but I will have to wait on it for now due to circumstances. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another resource of interest is found here. I wish I could remember who it was that said (citably) that the statue is based on three lies, yet Harvard's motto is Veritas, truth. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm forced offline until abt 5pm Boston time. Can you keep a vandalism watch? (I'm asking another friend as well.) Also, the new section on the 1890 incident needs proofreading. Thanks! EEng (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, aye, sir. Monitoring. Did the June 3, 1890 am Globe really say "the suspicious was magnified"? Hertz1888 (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Back now. At ease. Good job, sailor! suspicion was magnifiedEEng (talk) 22:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More than 15,000 viewings recorded (with only one trivial vandalization) in eight hours' time. A respectable & respectful response! Hertz1888 (talk) 05:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My delay in extending reciprocal congratulations, and responding to some of your points above, has been inexcusable. It continues to be a pleasure working with you. (I especially appreciate your pretending to be amused at my deadpan humor.) Your musing re origin of 3 lies set my feet on a little journey of discovery -- stand by. EEng (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still to come. In the meantime, since you enjoy a good laugh, try this [10]. Just the thought of it cuts me up at inappropriate moments. EEng (talk) 07:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Jerusalem and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
I haven't heard from you in ages -- mightily disappointed not to have gotten a laugh on [11]. So listen -- I have the idea that Harry Elkins Widener Memorial Library and Harry Elkins Widener should be merged. I had the idea already -- mostly because, for obvious reasons, there's not that much to say about Harry, and much of the text and images in his article overlap what is/ought to be said in the Library article. Then I got to thinking about adding info on the HEW Collection and HEW Memorial Room [12] and, again, the allegiance of such material is very evenly split between the man himself and Mommy's library, so a merge seems even more sensible. I think this qualifies as an uncontroversial merge and I hate setting up all those templates to propose one, so I thought I'd just go ahead and do it, if it seems OK to you too.
I don't know if they're any worse than the articles related to other major schools, but really, it's very disheartening to see the wretched state of most Harvard articles. I don't know why I'm mentioning this just now -- I guess just commiserating.
Hi! I went on the Germans page and saw that on the collage they put Einstein and Marx, who were obviously not German. I opened a discussion on the topic on the talk page, and I got a bunch of Germans saying Jews are not an ethnic group but a religion. Could you join the discussion and help explain them that Jews are an ethnic group and Einstein (who identified as a Jew) and Marx are Jewish.
[14] I guess Germans have a thing for trying to make the Jewish ethnicity not exist. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Einstein: Noch eine Art Anwendung des Relativitätsprinzips zum Ergötzen des Lesers: Heute werde ich in Deutschland als "Deutscher Gelehrter," in England als "Schweizer Jude" bezeichnet; sollte ich aber einst in die Lage kommen, als "bete noire" präsentiert zu werden, dann wäre ich umgekehrt für die Deutschen ein "Schweizer Jude," für die Engländer eine "Deutscher Gelehrte."EEng (talk) 05:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. You are receiving this message because you have recently participated at Talk:Jerusalem or because you were listed at one of the two recent requests for mediation of the Jerusalem article (1, 2). The Arbitration Committee recently mandated a binding request for comments about the wording of the lead of the Jerusalem article, and this message is to let you know that there is currently a moderated discussion underway to decide how that request for comments should be structured. If you are interested in participating in the discussion, you are invited to read the thread at Talk:Jerusalem#Moderation, add yourself to the list of participants, and leave a statement. Please note that this discussion will not affect the contents of the article directly; the contents of the article will be decided in the request for comments itself, which will begin after we have finalised its structure. If you do not wish to participate in the present discussion, you may safely ignore this message; there is no need to respond. If you have any questions or comments about this, please leave them at my talk page. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪ 12:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how you can insist to consider the length of the Dead Sea equal to km. 67 when the coastal lenght is 135 km, that is twice. Anyone has studied a little geometry understands that it can't be so, because the Dead Sea is not a toothpick but it has a width too. Just open Google Earth and measure it with a ruler. It is long 50 km. I say this with regret, because, seen the obvious inaccuracy of the page, I proceeded to amend it, but a zealous backroller promptly restored the wrong version, justifying this with a lack of motivation by me (!). It's you, instead, who should explain to the world how it is possible that the perimeter of a lake is twice the length. An error in a Wikipedia page there may be, the reversal of an error deleting the contribution of those who corrected him, however, there must not be. Best regards. Tirk48 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tirk48 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. No one has accused you of lacking motivation. All unexplained numerical changes are suspect, and often are difficult to distinguish from vandalism. You can avoid many misunderstandings by using the edit summary space to explain your intentions and leave a record for other editors. Also, it is always preferable to find and provide a reliable source for any new and changed information, especially if it might be called into question. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have revised the length figure in the article according to a cited reference. Thank you for calling attention to the need for a revision. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't there some noticeboard or something....[edit]
...where I can complain about this [15] outrageously offensive slander? EEng (talk) 13:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your strong antipathy to the sons of Eli notwithstanding, I think it might be time to walk away from the referenced conversation, where your humor seems to be unappreciated and unreciprocated. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please, we're all adults here. You mean bastards of Yale, no? Anyway, uou cannot possibly have known how wise your counsel was. See, in order:
This warning I received that humor on talkpages constitutes vandalism: [16].
Then finally, this postmortem of the ensuing colossal trainwreck [18] -- be sure to follow all the links in order.
Next time lash me to the mast, will you please? EEng (talk) 02:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But just as I prepare to press Save, comes this: [19]. Isn't that nice? It's like a Hallmark After-School Special.
I don't want to see you feed any trolls and/or get yourself in trouble. You can accomplish more on the loose than in the slammer. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To each his own. Thanks for sharing that ironic tale. It is good to know the Minor story was a major success. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jerusalem RfC discussion: rounding up step one[edit]
Hello. This is a boilerplate message for participants in the moderated discussion about the Jerusalem RfC - sorry for posting en masse. We have almost finished step one of the discussion; thanks for your statement and for any other contributions you have made there. This is just to let you know I have just posted the proposed result of step one, and I would like all participants to comment on some questions I have asked. You can find the discussion at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#Judging the consensus for step one - please take a look at it when you next have a moment. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪ 17:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This is to let you know that we have now started step two in the Jerusalem RfC discussion, in which we will be deciding the general structure of the RfC. I have issued a call for statements on the subject, and I would be grateful if you could respond at some time in the next couple of days. Hope this finds you well — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪ 16:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought a peer review might be fun. What do you think? Anything we should do first? I'm not an FA hound but I think this should qualify, don't you? -- though I don't relish a new pissing contest, of course. EEng (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has given us, just below on this page, a link to the FA criteria. I think peer review (WP:PR) is a different story, but both seem to abhor loose ends such as ambiguities, tags, misformatted citations, etc. It would follow that the first thing to do is to aggressively tidy up the article as much as possible. I'll try to help, as time permits, but it doesn't permit much these days. Cheers, Hertz1888 (talk) 08:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Boston for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. ELEKHHT 13:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have started to go through the article to address issues brought up in the FAR. Can you be able to look through the article (particularly pertaining to prose) to make sure the article can be read smoothly? Thanks. PentawingTalk 06:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed your efforts. Thanks for all the hard work. I will give the article a close reading and some tweaking, but may not be able to get to it for a day or two. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone. I have asked a question about having drafts versus general questions at the Jerusalem RfC discussion, and it would be helpful if you could comment on it. I'm sending out this mass notification as the participation on the discussion page has been pretty low. If anyone is no longer interested in participating, just let me know and I can remove you from the list and will stop sending you these notifications. If you are still interested, it would be great if you could place the discussion page on your watchlist so that you can keep an eye out for new threads that require comments. You can find the latest discussion section at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#Step two discussion. Best — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪ 04:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. This is just a quick message to let you know that unless there is significant ongoing discussion, I intend to wrap up step two in a few days, probably on Thursday 31st 28th February. I invite you to have a look at the discussion there, especially at question five where I have just asked a question for all participants. — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪ 13:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sewing up all the things to fix after the Big move (heh) has been quite an exercise, I appreciate you catching one of the things I'd left undone! --j⚛e deckertalk 04:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of detail work for you, I'm sure. Glad I could help. I really appreciate hearing from you. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this small but important improvement of my edit [21]! You're absolutely right, "states" is a much better way of phrasing it. My initial "claims" might be interpreted as doubt, which wasn't my intention, so your improvement is a much better option.Jeppiz (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you agree. Thanks for the nice note. Hertz1888 (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Griffin's Wharf at the end of Gridley Street[edit]
Hi Hertz, I reverted your change to my correction of the Boston Tea Party's Destruction of Tea section. Please see the talk page for an explanation. My edit was not "unsourced". I plainly gave the full title of the map which plainly shows the location of Griffin's Wharf at the end of Gridley Street. On the 1775 map Gridley Street is not specifically labeled, but you can readily verify that the street is Gridley by referencing any modern Boston map. The previous statement in the article that it was at the end of Pearl Street is incorrect. If you wish to view the 1775 map you can do so by visiting the Library of Congress online map archive: http://www.loc.gov/resource/g3764b.ct000250/. John Chamberlain (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the courtesy of a message here. I commented at the article's talk page before I saw your message here. The study essentially confirms the location given in your text, after considering various maps from that period. Hertz1888 (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thought you might enjoy this (though through some twist of fate I ran into our urinary friend again). More to be done, but would appreciate your impressions. EEng (talk) 04:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just passing by so I thought I'd stick my nose in... You are mistaken -- namesake has long been used "in both directions". You'll find plenty of 19th-c uses of the phrase namesake of old here. [22] In fact, the base denotation of namesake is that two things share the same name, without there being any "named after" relationship at all. EEng (talk) 04:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, interesting, thanks for the info EEng! -kslays (talk • contribs) 23:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You'll get my bill. EEng (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all. We have finally reached step three in the Jerusalem RfC discussion. In this step we are going to decide the exact text of the various drafts and the general questions. We are also going to prepare a summary of the various positions on the dispute outlined in reliable sources, per the result of question nine in step two. I have left questions for you all to answer at the discussion page, and I'd be grateful for your input there. Best — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪ 08:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extraterrestrial skies until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.Roodog2k (talk) 13:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Mr. Hertz, Just running this by you... Since the Twilight movie series, that article has taken a terrible Vandal beating.
Perhaps it's time to save us all some work, and semi protect the page. What do you think? Thanks Pocketthis (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am all for doing so, but anticipate that presently the response would be that four instances in 10 days (and longer) does not merit such protection. If the unwanted attention escalates I will not hesitate to file a request at WP:RPP (unless you beat me to it). Hertz1888 (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We may have to wait for the next Twilight movie to be released, and then each time one goes to DVD.....:) Thanks for your reply. Pocketthis (talk) 00:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Damage repaired—previous version restored. Always best to check for possible problems by previewing edits before saving. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello- Regarding your revert of my caption change on the Cambridge, MA article: While the caption is not completely incorrect as it stands, the implication is that the map's focus is Cambridge, which it is not. I wouldn't want you to think I made that edit without consideration; I make maps for a living, so I might be a stickler for accuracy in titles. Though the map linked there is a good one on a statewide scale, it is hard to make out much detail at the town level. I am sure we could find a much better one that depicts the historical boundaries of Cambridge along with the present ones. In fact, I'll wager Cambridge's GIS people have one already, or at least have the data to generate one. I can see you take some stewardship of the Cambridge article, so maybe you would know where to look for such a map, but I'd be happy to contact the city GIS dept if you like. Regards, Erictalk 15:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Eric, I made the change only with great hesitation and the highest respect for your intentions. There is no way to make matters really right with this small-scale, inadequate map (which even fails to show Newton as part of the original Cambridge). I have been looking without success in books for a better one. By all means inquire with the GIS folks. Another promising resource would be the Cambridge Historical Commission, though obtaining copies of materials might require a visit to their offices. Permission to publish might be another issue. In the meantime, I propose we expand the caption to say, "A map showing the original boundaries of Cambridge and other Massachusetts cities and towns", unless you think that might be too unwieldy. Best regards, Hertz1888 (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. I chatted with a helpful GIS guy from the city yesterday who doesn't know of any data depicting the original boundaries. It would be a fun project to track sources down and make the data. I can't do it right now, but drop me a line if you come across a possible source. Cheers, Erictalk 15:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe England and Wales (at least) are better served with large county maps that include small inset national maps. See Cambridge and Cardiff. For Cambridge MA as an example of territory within a U.S. county, the inset would be the state map now displayed at Middlesex County, Massachusetts. In practice this might need coordination and massive effort at the U.S. level.
P.S. Now I see you mean specifically this map[24] rather than this one.[25] --P64 (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be a misunderstanding here. We are seeking a larger-scale, more detailed map focusing on the original boundaries of Cambridge in the 1630s, to replace the "formation" map. Perhaps you can suggest a source of one. In any case, thanks for your interest. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
hi. hi there. I left a note for anyone in Arbcomm, here at this page. feel free to let me know what you think of this note, if you wish. appreciate your feedback. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Something to contemplate tomorrow. I may have comments or questions then. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd run your fresh eyes over this sometime before it posts to DYK at noon Eastern, Thursday Apr 25, I would be eternally grateful. EEng (talk) 03:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet article. Nice work! (Sniff...I only found trivial touch-up to do). Looks ready to roll. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know him? Wonderful man -- we won't be seeing his like again, I'm afraid. "Worth the entire price of admission" I told someone -- Abbot Lawrence Lowell was spot on about the House system and meals. User:David Eppstein did most of the writing, especially on the math research. Getting the images was so much trouble (I had my heart set on one from the H Gazette but Harvard is being pissy about licensing it) that I haven't had time to add a "Teaching" section and much other. If you're around sometime after 11am Eastern a proofreading pass might be helpful (unlikely will have much before then, and even if there was I would be infuriatingly tinkering with it). Listen, I was literally boarding a plane just at the moment of truth last Monday -- knew nothing until landing. I thought of you (among many others of course) but saw you were editing immediately after, so (assuming even you would have limits to your Wiki-dedication) I concluded you were OK. I hope and trust the same is true for those around you. EEng (talk) 11:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for catching some edits on the Beacon Hill, Boston article! I thought I created my own edit conflict (that seems to happen to me if I've made a number of edits with a number of previews). Anyway, I'll just update a section at a time now, which should cut down on the possibility of edit conflicts.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You should be thanked for your sustained, major efforts. My tidying up (done for now) was mainly trivial stuff. I find it can be hard to proof one's own stuff.
Could you check my edit of the Geography section? I tried not to affect any factual accuracy or create conflicts with the sources, but it would be good to have that confirmed. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching misses on my part - typos are one thing, but I was sure I had take "Boston Common" out of that spot. Great job making sure it's accurate!--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. All the best, Hertz1888 (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Request for clarification regarding Jerusalem RFC[edit]
Hello. We have almost finished step three of the Jerusalem RfC discussion, but before we move on to step four I would like to make sure that all the participants are happy with the drafts that we have chosen. The content of the drafts are likely to dictate what ends up in the actual article, after all, so I want to make sure that we get them right.
So far, there hasn't been much interest in the process of choosing which drafts to present to the community, and only three editors out of twenty submitted a drafts statement. I have used these three statements to pick a selection of drafts to present, but we still need more input from other participants to make sure that the statements are representative of all participants' wishes. I have started discussions about this under question seven and question eight on the RfC discussion page, and I would be grateful for your input there.
Also, there have been complaints that this process has been moving too slowly, so I am going to implement a deadline. If there haven't been any significant objections to the current selection of drafts by the end of Wednesday, 8 May, then I will move on to step four. Questions or comments are welcome on the discussion page or on my talk page. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪ 03:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone. We are now at step four of the Jerusalem RfC discussion, where we will decide the details of the RfC implementation. This is the home stretch - the RfC proper will begin as soon as we have finished this step. Step four is also less complicated than the previous steps, as it is mostly about procedural issues. This means it should be over with a lot more quickly than the previous steps. There are some new questions for you to answer at the discussion page, and you can see how the RfC is shaping up at the RfC draft page. Also, when I say that this step should be over with a lot quicker than the previous steps, I mean it: I have set a provisional deadline of Monday, 20th May for responses. I'm looking forward to seeing your input. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪ 12:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, everyone. I have now closed all the questions for step four, and updated the RfC draft. We are scheduled to start the Jerusalem RfC at 09:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC). Before then, I would like you to check the draft page, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem, and see if there are any errors or anything that you would like to improve. If it's a small matter of copy editing, then you can edit the page directly. If it's anything that might be contentious, then please start a discussion at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#The final countdown. I'll check through everything and then set the RfC in motion on Thursday. Best — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪ 16:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any idea what makes the title come out italic in the rendered version of John Harvard statue? Remember we discussed changing the title to "John Harvard (statue)" and I think I should go ahead and do that. Template:Italic_title lists a number of templates and so on but I can't find any of them in the article markup. Note that only John Harvard goes in italics, just like Mona Lisa (EP), but I can't find any markup there either re italic title. It's quite a mystery -- what am I overlooking? EEng (talk) 02:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you will probably find the solution via this link. I wish I were well enough to say and do more at this time. Best, Hertz1888 (talk) 04:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Well enough?" Are you ill? Something about the way you say that sounds ominous. Are you going to be OK? Email me if you want (but let me know lest it end up in the junk folder). EEng (talk) 04:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking. On the mend now; could take a while. Doesn't leave much energy for writing/editing. Hoping to be in touch later. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again everyone. We have finally made it - the RfC is now open, and a few editors have chimed in already. The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem. I'm sure you don't actually need me to tell you this, but please go over there and leave your comments. :) You are the editors most familiar with the Jerusalem lead dispute on Wikipedia, so it would be very useful for the other participants to see what you have to say. And again, thank you for all your hard work in the discussions leading up to this. We shall reconvene after the results of the RfC have been announced, so that we can work out any next steps we need to take, if necessary. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪ 13:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't known about this gentleman until I got interested in the Sacred Cod. Be sure to check out the source searches linked from the talk page, esp. for the Crimson [26]. EEng (talk) 02:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Hertz1888. Including the Brooklyn Museum in our captions is important because that is where people can find the original, larger file of the image posted. They are all a part of our permanent collection and should be referenced as such. Many other museums have done the same with their images and I don't see why it is such a problem. They are being linked through wiki commons and show up in the link as such. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tracield (talk • contribs) 18:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. Provenance information is readily available by clicking on the image. Putting it in each caption does not describe the subject matter depicted and can confuse the reader. Please put new sections at the bottom of talk pages. It took a while to find this one and move it. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The museum should be linked and, if included at all, which is not necessary as it is on the image file, should go last. Either the artist's name or the title of the work should go first. And please drop these "overall"s and use normal punctuation, and if appropriate include in the caption why the image is relevant, and dates. Your additions will last longer if this is done. See WP:VAMOS (and WP:COI and WP:SPAM). Johnbod (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that our New York friend is quite persistent. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand just what you mean. I have applied for page protection. Perhaps we can stem the tide that way. Very best, Hertz1888 (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have been given a six-month respite. Enjoyed your marvelous "toddler again" comment! Hertz1888 (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Was even looking forward to a re-run of the bar mitzva! Oh well. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Hertz1888. You have new messages at Lectonar's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Sorry to barge in here ;). Lectonar (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are more than welcome. Advice on your talk page heeded. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Almost time. I see you have started things off with a stern warning, which is good. We can see where that leads. If other IP addresses come into the picture, I suppose the next step would be a RPP. The immediate resumption of activity argues well for that being granted. Thanks for keeping in touch. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Deputy leaders of the thirty-third Israeli government[edit]
Could you help me with this? I don't know who are the current Head of the Government Deputies.--Michael Zeev (talk) 03:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Much as I would like to help, I am unfamiliar with that area. Best wishes in finding the information you are seeking. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, if you're well enough, some cool heads are needed at Talk:Phineas Gage e.g. [27] or [28]. It's like that guy we ran into at the statue article, only there's 10 of them. EEng (talk) 12:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather not get in the middle of that slugfest. Having just come from a prolonged pitched battle, what I need most of all is recovery time and to attend to pressing external matters. From what I saw on the "Gagetalk" page, at least one editor there has grossly exceeded the bounds of WP:NPA and WP:Civil and needs to be reminded of those policies. I don't see why the reminder shouldn't come from you. If the problem persists, perhaps I can help at some later time. You do seem to be largely holding your own, even with humor, but it must be an exasperating situation. Cheers, Hertz1888 (talk) 02:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, seeing how good you are on your recent copy edits on the Back to the Future related articles, I was wonder can you copy edit The Fog (2005 film)? Thanks.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, thank you. I have not seen the film, and also have other commitments. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the catch of my misspelling of "graffito" in the article. I am simultaneously chagrined and appreciative! kencf0618 (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are very welcome, and I learned a new word in the process. Thank you for the note, and for improving the article. Best, Hertz1888 (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Hertz1888. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page. Message added 16:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Hello again everyone. Now that the Jerusalem RfC has been closed and there has been time for the dust to settle, I thought it would be a good time to start step six of the moderated discussion. If you could leave your feedback over at the discussion page, it will be most appreciated. — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪ 09:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where would I find expert assistance in checking and correcting the template formatting at Talk:Empire State Building? The archiving I set up has so far not triggered any response. Hertz1888 (talk) 13:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The archving looks good to me, but the bot visits pages only once daily. I'd simply wait some time. Huon (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You were right. The wait paid off. Thanks! Hertz1888 (talk) 02:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...that before Mass Ave was pieced together the stretch from MIT to the Main Street fork was "Front St.", and Main St. ran the whole way from Kendall to Harvard. From the Yard north, what is now M.A. used to be, logically, "North Street." Another fun fact I ran into recently: the Harvard Bridge originally had a section in the center which swung open for boats.
Now in all seriousness, do you think it's really worth mentioning Peabody as a bounding thoroughfare, thus sending thousands of alumni scurrying to consult maps? And if we mention Peabody then don't we have to mention the bit of Harvard St. behind Lamont Library? Perhaps it would be better to say, "bounded generally by MA, Cambridge St., Broadway, Quincy." I leave this to you, O Keeper of the Ancient Details.
[Perhaps I should have said: "I leave this decision to you." I wasn't trying to twist your arm.]EEng (talk)
BTW, did you notice the left-to-right montage I added at John Harvard statue? I am devoid of artistic talent but I think it's a bit inspired. I never did find a source for the idea that the books under the chair specifically represent JH's donated library, but just this once I'm going to compromise my scholarly integrity and leave it silently uncited. Don't tell on me. EEng (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fun facts. Older maps indicate that before it was North Avenue, it (or at least some portion therof) was known at various times as "The Great Road" and "The Highway to Menotomy".
I didn't feel my arm was being twisted. Once you pointed it out, I saw that, for completeness, including Peabody St. would require including Harvard St. as well. I think the bounds of the Yard are adequately described without mentioning either, with the added qualifier "principally".
I wouldn't do the montage any differently. As for the caption, it is a correct statement per se, and if its juxtaposition with the books under the chair suggests a specific association, that is a subtle one. I don't think anyone is going to call you on it, and I won't snitch. Likewise, I think "diverges nearby" is properly descriptive wording, and parsimonious.
May all your efforts be appreciated. Cheers for now. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some time ago you mentioned being unwell, but you now seem your old self again. As you know, Mass Ave is famous for running all the way to Fitchburg (or something like that) but few realize that back when it was, as you mention, "The Highway to Menotomy" one could follow it all the way to Synecdoche, New York. EEng (talk) 02:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would be on the Highway to Metonymy. Sophisticated humor, but you can't fool me (though you almost did; Synecdoche, N.Y. sure sounds like a real place). As for the health matter, very perceptive of you, and far truer than you may realize. Thanks. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was using that gag for 20 years before the movie appeared. My lawyers are still negotiating what fraction of the box office I'm to get. EEng (talk) 10:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While you were fussing with such unimportant details as the impossibility of 18th-C sheriffs dismounting before the J Gate, I was loftily thinking... you know what would be a really fun article? History and traditions of Harvard University Commencements I think that's a better title than just Harvard Commencements -- which sounds flat, and while simply Harvard Commencements sounds more general I can't imagine any content which wouldn't fall under History and Traditions of. Here's a stub (and I really mean a STUB) -- why don't you copyedit as you wish, decide on the title, and do the honors. Note BTW that it's not required that the title appear in the opening sentence -- WP:LEADSENTENCE.
Later: Actually, I've continued to develop the new article and began to feel silly doing that here on your Talk (see history of this page). So I've moved it User:EEng/sandbox -- feel free to edit there (it will disappear when I transfer it to article space). Please let me know your opinion on the title. EEng (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The unbeatable team of EEng and Hertz -- together again! Time for move to article space. Not sure how much I'll put into continued development, but perhaps someone will be inspired -- no doubt there will be a flurry of activity each June. Pick a title:
Harvard commencements
Harvard commencement
History and traditions of Harvard commencements
History and traditions of Harvard commencement
[something else?]
On the whole I think "History and traditions of Harvard commencement" is best, but what do you think? EEng (talk) 12:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Various responsibilities/time constraints preclude concentration on this worthy project for the time being. Perhaps one of these days. "History and traditions of Harvard Commencements" seems to describe it adequately and best. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I spoke it mentally it was obvious the plural commencements is the right choice, though I immediately realized I hadn't considered the question of Harvard commencements versus Harvard University commencements. On that, the first seems right since, historically, the second wouldn't always have been correct, and the first is plenty unambiguous. I moved your two external links to the new Talk. [29]EEng (talk) 10:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:History_and_traditions_of_Harvard_Commencements#WikiProject.C2.A0Did_you_know_nomination. I took the liberty of naming you as a coauthor -- even moral support is very important, you know. I know you said you wouldn't have much time, but I want to ask you to do one thing: can you check the description of the order of the academic procession? The source, cited at the end of the last item in the bullet list, is very confusing, what with the four Houses making seven circles around the seven hills of Rome and so on. There's plenty of time -- DYK is backed up for a month or more. EEng (talk) 10:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC) P.S. Freudian-Slip-of-the-Week Award Winner[reply]
I have never learned to archive and my attempts have been unsuccessful. I wondered if you would not mind archiving old talk page discussion at these articles (the discussions are essentially the same but since the information applied to the closely related articles, they were repeated there (by myself).
Greetings. You seem to have found a way, as I don't see any content left there to be archived. Do you still need help? Perhaps setting these pages up in the standard way? If you're not in a hurry I will try to get to them after a while, but not right away; other promises to keep first. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...that you seem to archive everyone's posts here except mine, which you leave on display. Is that some kind of compliment? EEng (talk) 04:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In a way it is. Many are simply fun to keep in view, others I keep hoping to respond to properly "someday" (much as I hope to examine the academic procession someday, soon, if it still needs scrutiny; does it?). Please let me know.
On the other hand, you never seem to archive anything on your page. I've no idea what that might mean. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I have a kind of "let it all hang out" attitude -- there I am, warts and all. Absolutely The Committee looks forward to your review of the procession description -- be sure to note the links I added (can't remember where -- maybe above here in your Talk)this link [30] to Commencement Office maps of who marches where -- looks like a historical retrospective of Gettysburg, if you ask me -- on the day I just remember following the person in front of me, had no idea all these various corps and battalions and regiments were executing these maneuvers around me. (I also remember how wonderful Peter Gomes' sermon was that morning. I'd never been in Mem Church before, to my recollection. I was able to spend a few minutes speaking with him about it later in the day -- what a warm, intelligent man. It's a sad thing he's gone.) EEng (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lest this go completely unappreciated... [31]EEng (talk) 14:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A groaner, and hilarious. "Computers aren't really intelligent", you know, "they just think they are". Hertz1888 (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
About four years ago a friend submitted the following to Google:
Disambiguation link notification for September 27[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Golan Heights, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Laissez-passer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[32] OK, so I got distracted for a minute! 1000 words in there and you have to fuss about the ONE that's missing. Talk about glass half empty! Geesh! EEng (talk) 23:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kvetch, kvetch, kvetch. A-minus is an excellent grade, even at Hahvard. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was Richard Pipes who told the class on the first day, "The only way to get an A in my class is to disagree with me and prove it." 00:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't want to seem to critical but I believe you've pinpointed the north steps. [33] (You may have to select the Map dropdown and turn off the 45-deg option.) EEng (talk) 00:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC) I assume you made that edit in the course of your Academic Parade checking.[reply]
And oh yes: [[34]]. How delicious it was to find that parenthetical fact. EEng (talk) 00:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you're right about the pinpointing. Adjustment made. The building's shadow can be confusing, and conceals the statue when the satellite view is obtained in the morning, as pertains to the current version. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll transfer it to Harvard Yard as the coords there -- seems appropriate since, as we cognoscenti know, if you piss on JH and rub his foot (not the shiny one) counterclockwise, the plinth pivots back to reveal the President And Fellows' Secret Escape Tunnel, so that seems the appropriate single point to represent the Yard as a whole. EEng (talk) 02:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC) P.S. Ever been in the steam tunnels? And -- check out the source I added at Talk:Harvard Yard -- what a find![reply]
First aid applied to Harvard Yard article. I won't mind if you see fit to kill any of the new quotes or transfer them to footnotes. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done
![[24]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Formation_of_Massachusetts_towns.svg){kind=link}
![[25]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cambridge_ma_highlight.png){kind=link}
