User talk:Hertz1888/Archive 4

warn

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Golan Heights Winery. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Do not revert again please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ani medjool (talk • contribs)

This user warning template was fully unjustified, since Hertz1888 has removed the POV template (not directly applicable to a category as seen by those who actually read it) once, and Ani medjool have added it twice. Ani medjool will be notified accordingly. Tomas e (talk) 01:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Beoseon

Hello Hertz,

You're a mighty fine archivist, in regards to information on different types of footwear; its rather interesting all the types that are out there. Cheers --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 04:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Not to make light of the topic, but it may be time for editors to put their feet down and deal with persistent problems. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Penobscot knob

What brought you there? Such a low traffic article to have happend to have edited while I was. Daniel Christensen (talk) 20:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Coincidental timing. I followed a link there from Antenna farm, curious whether the Penobscot site was in Maine. Turns out there are other Penobscots. Cheers. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Dead sea spam

Just so you are aware, I proposed israel-deadsea.com be added to the spam blacklist - MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. I hate spammers! --Biker Biker (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Excellent news—thanks for telling me. They are a pain. Happy biking! Hertz1888 (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

LORAN

Thanks for help with the edit on LORAN. I think I might need some help on cleaning up the citations (see my previous edit). DrWhatIKnow (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC).

Next time it may be up to you. To format references & links, two good starting places are WP:CITE & WP:EL. Noting the syntax I used should also help bring you up to speed. Thanks for your edits. I'm glad you were able to bring in the essential citations. Cheers, Hertz1888 (talk) 04:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

RFC at my talk page

In an effort to create a navbox for urban parkways in the Boston metro area, I have come to the realization that what is really needed is something that ties together the entire system first envisioned by Charles Eliot in the late nineteenth century. I feel that this should be a cooperative effort, probably created as a subproject of WP:MASS. However, initially I am seeking comments and/or assistance from several editors that have contributed in various ways to elements of the scope of such a project. This note is being posted to the user pages of Beland, CaribDigita, Denimadept, EraserGirl, Grk1011, Hertz1888, Jameslwoodward, Markles, NE2, Polaron and Swampyank. I apologize in advance to anyone who wishes to comment that I have left off of the list of users, as I may have unintentionally forgotten them and others. Please feel free to comment on my talk page under the heading I have created, linked here. Thanks – Sswonk (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Mondo

You removed my reference to Mondo tracks from the Track and field athletics page. Do no mistake my posting of a link for brevity as an attempt at commercializing Wikipedia. There was already an appropriate reference to Tartan track which was the first successful artificial running surface. Mondo tracks are becoming the top tracks in the world. Without definition, the name could be misused as a genericized trademark for rubberized running tracks. I did not place the reference to the name Mondo, all I did was place a link to the company who makes it. The majority of World Championships, Olympics and major competitions take place on Mondo tracks. It is almost the defacto requirement in order to host a major competition, certainly an overwhelming leader of the market. It deserves its own article to discuss how this form of track, a rubber carpet essentially, differs from other tracks, why it is faster than most other surfaces in the All weather track world. The whole subject of all weather tracks is yet another article that should be written. I haven't got the time to flesh all that out, to the standards that it should be fleshed out just to survive the barrage of attacks the censors of wikipedia will impose upon any new article. I am an expert in the field, I'm probably the one to write all these articles in the future. Suffice it to say, I placed that link on a temporary basis, so people could go to the website of the manufacturer and gain the information about their system. I'll probably have to interpret that company's information to write the article. Its a stopgap, a temporary solution. At least it does provide information, as opposed to the way you have left it, which is incomplete. I don't want to get into a battle with you, please just restore the link. Trackinfo (talk) 01:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't do that. The link appears to violate WP:SOAP no. 1 and WP:ELNO nos. 1 & 5, especially the latter. Per my reading of WP:SOAP no. 5, and of WP:ELNO, it might be acceptable as an external link in a dedicated article about the Mondo company. The Tartan track link was to a WP article, not an external site. I don't doubt your expertise. Best wishes with your other edits. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I went forward and addressed All-weather tracks in a separate article that starts to cover the subject including competitors in the commercial marketplace. I also worked previously on the Tartan tracks article that previously used it as a misnomer generecized trademark. It was THERE I gave links to the Tartan EPS company. In the future, I (or someone) should write an article about Mondo and its style of creating such surfaces (it does have competitors), but I need further information to reference and verify its dominance at the elite level.Trackinfo (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I am unable to provide such information, and wish you well in finding same. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"Relative inaccuracy" and radio clocks

Hi, thanks for your contribution. It's fine with me; we'll see if it will satisfy ParaGreen13; I think he will object to any suggestion of "inaccuracy", but we'll see. My rationale for "no, they're really not that accurate between updates" is on the talk page, it just took me a little to get the first version saved, and you must have looked and made your edit in that window. Cheers! Jeh (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what happened. I'm glad you like the wording. It should be defensible on the basis that anything man-made is relatively inaccurate compared to an atomic clock. Cheers and thanks for your note and editorial contributions. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD

I've nominated List of former Jews, List of former Christians, and List of former Muslims together for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former Jews.Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Bedford Falls

Hello. I'm curious. Why did you remove "New York" from the location of the fictional town of Bedford Falls in the film, It's a Wonderful Life?

Thanks in advance for your response. MCB, Jan. 1, 2010, 3:32 MST. 67.173.237.220 (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a better question would be, on what basis did you add "N.Y."? Though it is said that the film "hints" at Bedford Hills being in N.Y. State, and there are many similarities between it and Seneca Falls, New York, it appears not to specify a state. If you have information to the contrary that can be reliably sourced (which I believe unlikely), it can be added. If a specific state were explicitly named in the film, I think that would have come to light by now, and to the best of my knowledge, it hasn't. Best wishes, Hertz1888 (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hertz, I saw the film last week, and one of the legal documents that was shown in the film listed the town as "Bedford Falls, New York." I forgot which document or which scene it was in. (It might have been Mr. McGowan's telegraph or some paperwork the bank examiner had. I don't remember.) I'll watch the DVD again and let you know where it appears, but I won't be able to get to it for another week or so. After I re-watch it, I'll post a note here telling you where in the film that document is. And then you can watch that scene yourself and decide if that is sufficient evidence to include it in the article. Thanks, again, MCB Jan. 3, 2010, 10:36 MST. 67.173.237.220 (talk) 05:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope that you will take a look at the wikibias website.RockvilleMD (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC).

Track and field athletics

I notice you are doing a good job of monitoring this page. I Identify the latest additions by 99.3.151.168 as vandalism but I don't know how to revert properly back about 3-4 levels to one that is proper. Someone did revert away some of the vandalism, but did so through editing which also eliminated valid content. I would like to get this right, as you see I have made significant contributions to this article.Trackinfo (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. The article is back to yesterday's state, and the IP editor warned. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

שלום

Shalom Hertz1888,

I thought I would let you know that your name has come up in the list here.

Best wishes for the new year! --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 08:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Erich Segal

Hi, in this revert you have taken out references (ISBNs and OCLCs) for the bibliography as well as several other useful changes. As you did not explain in the edit comment what you objected to, I'm puzzled as to your intent. Perhaps you didn't mean to revert all of my edits and end up leaving the Bibliography inconsistent?—Ash (talk) 10:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

My humblest apologies! The action was entirely unintentional. I dozed off over the keyboard and, to my great embarrassment, must have inadvertently pressed the wrong key at the wrong time. I have now reverted the article to the state in which you (and others) left it. Thank you for your good work on the article, and for understanding my faux pas. Hertz1888 (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for promptly swapping it back in.—Ash (talk) 13:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

3rr

be careful, you violate 3rr by add back in "Israel cuisine" category. Ani medjool (talk) 23:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Be careful or I will report you for disruptive editing. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Maxwell

I noticed this. Care to follow your own advice and discuss in talk? --John (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. Done. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Al-Aqsa Mosque

Hi. I'm afraid I have no particular expertise on the subject, but I'll join the effort to help maintain Wiki-peace. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting photo

Thanks for the Cambridge cattle pass photo. Never knew it was there and couldn't quite imagine what exactly the historic place looked like!Swampyank (talk) 02:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Glad I could help by capturing the views during an exceptional opportunity. I appreciate your note! Hertz1888 (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Breaking Away

Hertz1888

Your information is incorrect concerning the family name used in the movie Breaking Away. The spelling is Stoller, not Stohler. Reference #3 is incorrect on the page as well. Please do not change the page citing vandalism.

Thanks, Dalestoller (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Good Article review

Hi Hertz,

I've nominated Israeli cuisine for GAR. I know you've contributed to it so can't review, but I was wondering if you had the time and inclination to look it over before the review, as you've made helpful corrections to things that have slipped through the cracks before. I'd appreciate it if you could, but no pressure, of course! Thanks, -- Chefallen (talk) 05:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to, but because of all your hard work I can't believe there will be much left for me to fix. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Much appreciated. -- Chefallen (talk) 01:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

vandalism regarding boston tea party

This is a school, with multiple computers. if you blocked this IP address, would that prevent editing of wikipedia from all the computers? --204.185.47.129 (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see box under "May 2009" on your user talk page for more information. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Team Hoyt

I took an interest in this article, believe it or not, after looking at the article for Mary Carillo, who apparently received an Emmy for a feature she did on the Hoyts for Real Sports on HBO. While I understand your concern about the structure of the article, I doubt if it is actually plagiarized. I took the time to search for a few of the sentences in the article and came up with nothing, as I'm sure you did or you would have deleted the content by now. It is quite possible that the contributor (Hockeygirl10) wrote the article herself, possibly as a school project, and was simply unfamiliar with the structure and format of a wiki article, in particular, how to incorporate references.

Assuming that this is the case, I fixed and organized the references in the article after verifying that the cited points are actually covered, to the extent that this is possible. I was able to find most of the references online but do not have access to Sam Nall's book. It seems reasonable that the points citing the book as source would be included there since it is apparently biographical. I stopped short of removing your warnings about possible plagiarism, but you might want to consider doing this yourself.

The article still needs a bit of a rewrite to make it more encyclopedic, but that should be relatively trivial since the citations have been checked out. Eegorr (talk) 07:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your many hours of hard and fruitful work on the article. Your ability to track down the references, connect them with the text, and convert them to proper citations has made for a major step forward.

My attempts to communicate with Hockeygirl elicited no response. The sections arrived ready-made, as if copied and pasted, with no subsequent touch-up done. The content involved extensive interviewing, and to me the style looks far too advanced for a school project. It doesn't add up. I did try to find a source on line, and then kept hoping more information would eventually surface. Perhaps there is a more benign explanation than plagiarism. The origin(s) may remain a mystery. However, I believe we are approaching the point where the tags can be removed with a clear conscience. Come what may, a certain amount of paraphrasing and other rewrite will soon make them moot.

Thanks in advance for whatever you can do to further transform and develop the article. I am glad to know you are on the job. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

I suggest you cut your vandalism, it is criticism not bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.108.154 (talk) 04:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hertz, I fail to see what part of the IP's edit is vandalism. In fact, it's nowhere near vandalism. I advice you to be careful. - Zhang He (talk) 04:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Continuing to change national varieties of English, for one thing, despite 3 or 4 explanations; re-wording contrary to the cited source, for another. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Era dating

WHY ARE YOU DELETING MY COMMENTS? WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF???Bilcarter (talk) 07:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

According to the precious WP rules that Hertz quotes incessantly, persistent changes to an article (as I have done) is NOT considered vandalism. However, deleting a user's comments (as Hertz has done to me) IS vandalism.Bilcarter (talk) 07:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone else deleted them, for which I am grateful. Your comments are abusive and represent harassment, and THAT (per WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL) is vandalism. Cease and desist. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Jerusalem

Sorry for the change but if you want to really be neutral I advise that you include how some people view government of Israel as terrorists just like how people view hamas and others as terrorists. Also include their actions. Yusef —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yusef91 (talk • contribs) 07:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Stop vandalizing VAWA article, next time read the discussion for the explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.108.154 (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

"Unneeded" is not a valid reason for removing sourced content. If anyone is the vandal, it is you. P.S. Please add comments at bottom of talk pages, and sign them. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yi or I, questions

I had an inkling you’d be watching, and was editorially content with your following edits; Taking 4 paras to 3 relevant sentences took considerable synthesis, which I was concerned might be seen editorially in caps; I believe the ref ended where the cite started. I’d like to comment toward a question and hopefully learn from your response, if you would do so. That learning would help avoid OR, since quite untypically, I admit a wanting to learn; it helps my npov result. We seem collaborative there, with previously exhibited AGF. I do not read any type of .he, am stuck with .en, but delve into the former by using the latter for description; do you .he? Specifically, is using the phrasing ‘traditional Judaic or modern Hebrew’ OK;? Should it be an 'and'. Researching on several relevant background pages, refs, and the existing words, led to that word choice. Also, how do you consider the ref on an RS scale. Editorially, my concern is the modern political phrase in .en with capital letters in both words/languages, when a single capital 'I' is often more accurate and neutral. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 04:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Greetings, CO'48. I regret to say I am completely at a loss to connect your message with anything I have worked on. Are you sure this message was intended for me? If so, please identify the article and topic, and I will try to help. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You must deal with a much broader purview, sorry, it is Land of Israel. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 10:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a need to change the spelling. Per the useful table in Romanization of Hebrew, y is the accepted transliteration of the Hebrew letter yod. The term "Judaic Hebrew" is unusual and, as biblical Hebrew, the traditional language of prayer, forms the core of modern Hebrew, or is not the most appropriate linkage. As a suggestion, I would think that "traditional and modern", connected by and, would be a more accurate and recognizable formulation. Best wishes, Hertz1888 (talk) 03:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree appropriate spelling should not change, and never saw a need to do so; I generally agree with your suggested re-wording, but will add ‘religious’. This leads to another question, which is more a matter of the proper introduction of the specifically political, anglicized, yod-less term Eretz Israel. This spelling was introduced in mainstream media post-1967/1977, largely as a metonym/synecdoche for the borders of Palestine and/or Greater Israel. While you never responded to the RS-ness of the included ref, I will note that its author makes that connection by his use of ‘Palestine/ Eretz Israel’ on accessible pages and when appropriate in various historic settings. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

April 19, 1775

Re: Lexington-Concord Sesquincentennial commemoration stamps: Again, aside from Washington DC, my reference was to THE five cities in Mass' where the stamps were first put on sale. This is not to say that other locations were not involved. Your contention that other cities were involved was and is not in dispute, so your ommision of 'the' was rather pointless, per your claim about other locations. Gwillhickers (talk) 04:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Not pointless. Regardless of your intent, "THE [emphasis added] five Massachusetts cities and towns that played major roles" means "the ONLY five". Anyway, it's fixed now. Hertz1888 (talk) 08:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

In the context you present above this would be the case, however, your reference here takes the clause out of context.

Since there were five and only five other cites (besides DC) that issued the stamps, the 'THE' indeed refers to only those stamp issuing locations, regardless of any mention to the capacities of their roles.

While we are on the topic, just how many cities can play major roles in the first place? If we have for example 'ten' cities/towns claiming a 'major role' it would seem that their role would have to be appreciably greater than 10%; five cities, 20%. (numbers used as guideline) It would be interesting to know which other city, town or location played a role in the battles which were equal to or greater than those of the five cities and towns mentioned. Towns whose borders, names and demographics have changed (long?) after the battles and who were once part of the five cities mentioned would seem not to be the best example and nothing that would warrant such an assertion. Gwillhickers (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"the 'THE' indeed refers to only those stamp issuing locations" - which you never said; readers are only text readers, not mind readers. Even had you said it, the wording following would have needed some tweaking to accord with history. The statement is now correct and stable. No further attention should be needed. It is arguable that Menotomy (now Arlington) played a greater role than Concord Junction (now West Concord). The battle I don't appreciate is the seemingly never ending battling over this one short sentence. Can we leave it now? Hertz1888 (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh.. alright. Just out of curiosity, what is the "1888" in your user ID pertain to? Gwillhickers (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. The answer is to be found here. Cheers, and thanks for your numerous top-quality stamp photos. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Hertz.. Yes. Didn't realize his stay here on the planet was so brief. </p<

Having some problems with the licensing of images of foreign stamps, so i removed the thumbs here. GWillhickers (talk) 10:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

They were good while they lasted (perhaps appropriately for a "brief stay". I appreciate your kind gesture in bringing them here. Cheers, Hertz1888 (talk) 01:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks from the Hurva!

Thanks for your help over at the Hurva. Your contributions are vital if this is going to be promoted to FA! Chesdovi (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It's my pleasure. You do so much more. Thanks for your note; always good to hear from you. I will continue to monitor the article. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Twice! The maximun height was 24m. Chesdovi (talk) 03:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Whoops. Maths was never my subject! :-/ "Nearly" will be inserted! Chesdovi (talk) 03:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I've taken care of it, at least tentatively. One could also say "half as high again", but I think the present wording is clearer. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Jerusalem

I don't think contributing to Wikipedia with the truth about Jerusalem could be seen as vandalism. Using a robot, Microsoft Encarta, is never a reliable source to be used as a reference. I will get scientific resources proving the city as disputed area. I guess the city is more disputed than its a capital of Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omansour (talk • contribs) 20:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring warnings not to violate the established consensus can be seen as vandalism, as can removing well-sourced content to assert a point of view. Instead of making changes unilaterally, proper procedure would be to engage in discussion on the article's talk page. As for "the truth", nearly everybody claims to have it, despite vastly differing points of view. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Marzel

Perhaps you would like to join the discussion on the article talk page? I fail to see what needs confirmation, given that the passage in question is supported with a reliable source. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Request

Per talk, I would like to rename Yonatan Netanyahu to Jonathan. There have been no objections. Since I've never moved an article, and I already messed up on the first attempt, would you mind handling it? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe I can handle it, and would be happy to oblige if there is a consensus, but can't tackle it immediately. Perhaps we should allow a few more days for discussion anyway. Hertz1888 (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Old city

Yeah looked odd - probably should have warned but ended up hitting the welcome button SatuSuro 14:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your c/es on the hummus proposal... I'm back in Mexico now...and while internet is never very good here, tonight my internet connection is being powered by a gerbil on a treadmill...its taking FOREVER for pages to update and reload. It literally took five minutes for my hummus proposal to post!!!! --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 04:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

That really is slow. Now you know why "they" say www means "world wide waiting". Buena suerte. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Another thanks

Hi Hertz, Thanks again for the time and effort you put into editing the Israeli cuisine article. I'm sure that all your fixes helped to get it promoted to GA status! ---- Chefallen (talk) 19:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations! I am delighted to hear it has been promoted, and appreciate your note. You (& Gilabrand) did far, far more than I and are the real stars. I wish we could all go out for a celebratory dinner. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Apologies if my ES came across more confrontational than it was meant, indeed there has been no discussion on the talk page regarding this. It is my understanding that the previous discussion was regarding a Syrian category. Best, Unomi (talk) 11:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

User:70.70.8.191

FYI, I see that you've given him a final warning, and that he went back and vandalized the same page. See user talk page. regards, ScottyBerg (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I gave a level 3 warning. I don't see the point of going back to a level 1 "welcome". Was that your intention? Can we change it to a final (level 4) warning? Hertz1888 (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Went ahead & took care of it. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear Hertz

I see you very active in Al-Aqsa page. In both times I made changes to the article, you reverted it in less than few minutes so I thought the best way is to leave you a note.

The changes I made are small yet essential. The Aqsa is a site that is revered in Islam for the same reason it is revered in Judaism albiet under a different name. Tomaito/Tomato.

I'm not sure if this is fortunate or not but it is true. The Aqsa, the mosque, was built few hundred years after Mohammad's death. That is certainly not an enough reason to make it a holy place in Islam. Muslims have faced the temple mount/Aqsa for more than 10 years before Mecca became their new Kotel.

There is a lot of confusion even among Muslims as what the Aqsa really is. Please see this site

http://www.atlastours.net/holyland/al_aqsa_mosque.html

Since you are very active in the page I request from you that you consider these changes with an open mind.

All the best.

Marco Polo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.170.158 (talk) 04:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll do my best. May I suggest you bring a discussion to the article's talk page? Meanwhile, I hope the present wording is equitable. Please bear in mind that the article is primarily about the mosque as such, rather than about the location. The mount has its own article, the Dome of the Rock another, etc. Cheers, Hertz1888 (talk) 05:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you please weigh in

I've been banned for making a WP:BLP violation. I was wrong interpreting what WP:BLP entails but I was given an indefinite ban.. I think this is harsh and strange. I've always appreciated your balanced edits and I think you can weigh in as a neutral party to the debate. Amoruso (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

thank you. the original discussion is here, sorry.[1] Amoruso (talk) 12:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - Mass Ave

Thanks for the peer review on the Mass Ave. article. As you can tell, I was mulling over that inbound vs. outbound. Some aspects of the article were working from an inbound perspective, while some were outbound. I was just coming back to reverse it, but given that you have such a good eye you caught it first. :-) Thanks. CaribDigita (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi - I'm glad you like the teamwork; same here. Thanks for all that you do. It deserves to be widely appreciated, I'm sure. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Say, can you think of anything else about Mass Ave that should be added? :-) Like from a out of towner's point of view? :-) Off the top of my head I've run out of ideas. Sometimes it is so easy to pass something all the time and hardly even notice. Well, at least now it covers subway + bus lines, parks/bike trails, and a start of the notable buildings. I may have to look around WP and see what some other cities are choosing to add to their road articles to get an idea. CaribDigita (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

CD, I'm so sorry to have taken so long to respond. I hope you are still watching here. I couldn't think immediately of anything significant to add to the article, and then got sidetracked. I think you have the essentials pretty well nailed down. You might want to put in the rough distance from, say, the Charles River to the Lexington Green (I believe it's about 11 mi./18 km), or maybe all the way from Dorchester to the Minuteman N.H. Park. I would keep it simple and casual, though. Any attempt at high precision would be risky; it could raise questions of accuracy, sourcing, original research. The history section could benefit from mentioning former names of the route, such as (at least in North Cambridge) North Avenue, preceded by the Country Highway, the Concord Road, The Great Road (not necessarily in that order), and before that, the "Highway to Menotomy". Cheers for now. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

kochav

Toda achi! --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 23:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Ain davar. I can't thank you enough for what you set in motion.

The template, it turns out, is not completely automatic, but if you update the edit count manually at various milestones, the display should update accordingly. You're due for an upgrade soon. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. The latter distance is already in there, I see. One less deficiency. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Beard Islamic section

The Allah/God link was an error. As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)#Allah I was intending to pipe it to God in Islam, an article about the Islamic concept of God. Allah is an article about the Arabic word for god, as used by Christians, Jews and Muslims, which pre-dates modern usage as the word for the Abrahamic diety. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 10:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you caught it. Thanks for fixing it. Hertz1888 (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the correction

		Copy Editor's Barnstar
		I award you this Copy Editor's Barnstar for insisting on clear, comprehensible, and grammatically correct articles. NickCT (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

For fixing unforgivably bad wikipedia editting. NickCT (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Happy to be of service, free of charge, but many thanks for the Barnstar—my first. Very thoughtful of you. "Unforgivably" is far too strong a term, but I suppose you are being hyperbolic. All the best, Hertz1888 (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hyperbolic indeed. Though it was a childish error. Best to you. NickCT (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Jerusalem lead

You remarked in your edit-summary: "wording & structure of the lead are per consensus". I don't mind the link that you reinstated, now that I've digested the political/cultural significance, but it is unwise to assert with a blanket statement that no one can edit the lead: that is the implication of the edit-summary.

As you can see from my talk-page comment, I think it's best to remove the first of the huge raft of sources for the "biggest city" thing. Please let me know if you disagree (on my talk page). Tony (talk) 13:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hertz, I'm so glad you like the Bach movement; no one has ever commented on it before. The Jerusalem article is a rich subject and—in places—is very nicely written. I still think the the number of refs for the "largest city" looks defensively large, but in any case, a newspaper source would be better after the books and academic sources, don't you think, rather than first, a position that weakens the verification, if anything.

The array of pics above the infobox: rather cluttered, and spoils the effect in my view—some are so tiny it's hard to make out what they are: is it a marketplace to the middle right? That would be first to be moved down, if the mess were rationalised. The density of pics in the body of the article is not so great that one or two more could not be added from the infobox.

Let me disclose that any religious/emotional conflict concerning Jerusalem is a great bore to me. I am an utter heathen (anti-religious, actually). But it's an important article historically and culturally, so I'm interested.

If the article is not to be semi-protected (I'm surprised it's not), why don't you put an editorial comment in caps at the top concerning consensus and the lead? Tony (talk) 12:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hello,

What do you mean by "Wording of the lead has been established by editorial consensus. Changes require consensus"?

Thanks in advance, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.247.44.7 (talk) 05:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The existing wording and structure result from lengthy discussions among editors on the article's Talk page, Talk:Jerusalem. Some of the more recent discussions may be read there; others have been archived. You will find a link to those near the top of the page, labeled "Archived Talk about Jerusalem as capital of Israel may be found HERE". You are welcome to join any discussion on the talk page, or start a new topic, as long as it pertains to editing and improving the article. In general, any edits made to any Wikipedia article must have reliable sourcing and carry a neutral tone. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Trolls

I was hoping the troll would go away, but I guess life under its bridge must be boring. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 01:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Holon

Hello, Hertz1888. I accidentally completely screwed up the page Holon (and I mean completely screwed it up), and I can't seem to fix it. Could you spread the word and see what you could do to help? Thanks!--RM (Be my friend) 05:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Amy Winehouse & friends

I guess the troll noticed your comment.[2] --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 01:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Todah raba chaver. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 06:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

IHH (İnsani Yardım Vakfı)

An IP address and a new user are disruptively removing material from IHH (İnsani Yardım Vakfı), the Islamist organization sponsoring the ship in the Gaza flotilla. Here is the material:

The Daily Telegraph calls the IHH, "a radical Islamist group masquerading as a humanitarian agency."

According to Henri Barkey, an analyst for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the IHH is, an Islamist organisation as it has been deeply involved with Hamas for some time," and "Some of its members went on the boat saying that they had written their last will and testament." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Broad Wall (talk • contribs) 03:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The material appeared to have been restored by the time I read your message, and has remained. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Dear Hertz1888, please: before removing a section of an article, check the references cited therein. The reference I gave for an allegation came from a slate.com article which, if you read, shows an author's name.

Furthermore, please understand the distinction between documenting a sourced allegation with the allegation itself. I neither support nor deny allegations that Caroline Glick is racist. In fact, I would love to see evidence disputing that she is a racist. Please respond with neutral content within an article rather than attempting to censor it. I know that everyone makes mistakes. 69.110.12.49 (talk) 17:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I did not see the quoted comments in the Pareene article—an honest oversight—and believed them to be in the reader feedback section. However, BLP dictates that we have to be extra careful and err on the side of caution. It is not censorship to be guided by that policy. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not "caution" to make wholesale deletions to an entire category of an entry and level accusations of edit warring. 69.110.8.85 (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

At least three different editors have removed the section on the basis of WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP and WP:RS concerns. Your repeated reinsertion of it constitutes disruptive editing behavior. It is increasingly clear to me that the policy at WP:UNDUE especially applies to this situation. I suggest you read (or reread) it carefully before going around blaming others. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks

This IP account, 69.110.12.49, has called others who don't share his viewpoint, "vandals." I filed a complaint against him here and encourage you to do the same. He also appears to be a notorious edit warrior, using several different IP accounts to circumvent edit warring rules. Respectfully--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with Jiujitsuguy: I think we can be more effective at advancing our perspective if we occasionally incorporate the language and assumptions of those we oppose in order to undermine them. This tack will be more effective in the long-run, trust me. Jiujitsuguy has been getting himself (and by extension, all of us) into hot water by multiple users by being too blatant. Hence I am writing anonymously and occasionally incorporating "pro-Palestinian" language while making sure content stays in line with our interests. Just thinking aloud here...67.180.26.60 (talk) 06:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Please think aloud somewhere else. Your message is convoluted and your meaning unclear. It sounds like you are treating WP as a battleground, contrary to basic policy. After reverting edits of mine you ask that I allow you to do more of same, and to trust you? No, thank you. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Jerusalem

Please refer to my talk page for further comment. Jerusalem is not recognised as the legal capital of 'Israel'. You may refer to "The international community largely considers the legal status of Jerusalem to derive from the partition plan, and correspondingly refuses to recognize Israeli sovereignty in the city." here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem#Political_status Your inference about my motives and neutrality is NPOV. Your writing also breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopaedia. The existing wording is extensively sourced and is equally extensively repudiated. Keith-264 (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It's hard

Its hard to have a discussion with someone who thinks that they and their opinions are infallibly neutral, while everyone else who disagrees with them is "always wrong and a POV-pusher". Sigh.. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 21:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoever that is, I agree. They can be difficult. I remember reading something here on WP about those who think they have a monopoly on the truth. (I wish I could recall the details.) Away from WP, it might be called self-righteousness or arrogance. Sometimes it can be benign & charming, like the proud mother watching the military parade who exclaims, "Look at that, everybody out of step but my Johnny!" Sometimes not so benign & charming.

Always good to hear from you. Please let me know if you need a helping hand. By the way, you seem to have passed a major milestone. Updating the edit count on your User page should result in an upgrade. Happy graduation! Hertz1888 (talk) 23:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, somehow I seemed to have missed this one. Sigh the never ending drama that is Wikipedia....Oh well, in the end everyone gets what they deserve...or at least I like to think that. Hope you are having a good week! --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 01:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

William H. Prescott is now a Good Article

Hi ! Thanks for all your work on copy-editing my expansion of this article - you'll be pleased to know that it's passed its GA review. Claritas § 19:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hearty congratulations! I am glad to see your expertise, extensive research and editing recognized. You clearly put a lot of time and effort into developing the article. Thanks for your kind note. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Re Talk:Oliver R. Smoot

Well put. - Denimadept (talk) 02:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. You provided the impetus. Thanks for that. I treasure our collaboration. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully, we'll do it again. I'm trying to get myself moving on a bridge over the Connecticut River between VT and NH called the Vilas Bridge. It's about a mile downstream from the Arch Bridge (Bellows Falls) bridge, and was closed several months ago. I've got pics from 2007, before they closed it. I might take new pics. Thing is, there appears to be very little online about it, so I have to actually go to VT and NH state libraries to get the info. :-/ - Denimadept (talk) 07:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's best to let him die of starvation, so I've stopped responding to him. If he persists in talking to himself, no big deal. If he changes an article, he can be reverted, dinged as a vandal, and blocked. I like your take on his most recent edit. - Denimadept (talk) 05:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The silent treatment, yes. I couldn't agree more on that, and the rest of what you say. I'm ready to tune out on him. He sounds obsessive about this point, and increasingly self-righteous and disrespectful. That makes editing less than fun, doesn't it. I'm glad you approve of what I had to say. If I ever should think I have sole possession of the truth on anything, I would want somebody to tell me to chill out and get a wider perspective.

I hope you feel appreciated for all the good work you do, and for your levelheadedness. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I do, I do. I've learned, on such as Ponte Vecchio, that life's too short to spend it arguing pointlessly. Thanks. - Denimadept (talk) 06:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hm, looks like he may have created a sock puppet. - Denimadept (talk) 05:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, looks like he tried it. Good catch. - Denimadept (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this is a sock, or not. Hard to say. I'd still like to see wording that acknowledges (with sourcing, without OR, and without undue weight) multiple schools of thought, for balance and in the (perhaps vain) hope of cooling the antagonism this question has engendered. Isn't there a protocol to follow when sources conflict? And when some appear more plausible than others? Hertz1888 (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

We did it already, including the conflicting sources. Well, we did in Smoot. This biographical article seems to be a bit light on actual biography, instead covering some of what Smoot does. I think it needs major work. - Denimadept (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether it's a sock or not, it's saying much the same thing. I've reworked the O.R. Smoot article to not focus on the smoot, and suggested that those into biographies have some work ahead of them. Bios are not my thing. I do bridges, y'know? - Denimadept (talk) 22:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

And you do them well. Sorry to be so slow in responding; busy times. I agree: sock or not, they're very similar in attitude. So far, no one's complained about your shifting the emphasis at O.R.S.—properly—to biography. I can't see how they would have much of a case. As for what appears at Smoot, it's firmly sourced and rational. Letting the Class of 1962 have the last word kind of nails it. Still, I'm not certain the section does justice to the existence of opposing views. Perhaps the text should be rounded out a bit (with nothing like equal time, as I believe that would be undue weight), but I'm not sure how that would best be framed. Something to think about. All the best, Hertz1888 (talk) 02:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Western Wall

Please point ou which specific point you consider discussion necessary. "(Reverted good faith edits by Iferera; Stripping lede of this essential info. does not improve it; the other changes are controversial & sbould be discussed."

The Western Wall (Hebrew: הכותל המערבי‎) (Arabic: غرب الجدار‎), in Judaism referred to as the Wailing Wall or simply the Kotel and as al-Buraaq Wall in contemporary Islam,[1] is the main Jewish religious site in the world and is located in the Old City of Jerusalem. Just over half the wall, including its 17 courses located below street level, dates from the end of the Second Temple period, being constructed around 19 BCE by Herod the Great. The remaining layers were added from the 7th century onwards.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Iferera (talk • contribs) 18:49, 14 July 2010

I see no constructive purpose to deleting the translations and transliterations. I am confident that if I did not restore them others would. The name "Wailing Wall" is falling into disuse, and the word "sometimes", which you removed, is appropriate for the lede. The other content and phrasing there has been carefully developed by numerous editors in collaboration. It would be prudent to discuss major changes once they've been reverted, if not in advance, rather than simply reasserting them. Some would say the Temple Mount, rather than the Western Wall, is the holiest site in Judaism. If you wish to continue this discussion, please do so on the article's Talk page, following the WP:BRD policy. Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages such as this. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Help

See Brooklyn Bridge history please. - Denimadept (talk) 04:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

TYVM. If he just wanted the other picture, he could've just done that instead of trying to be insulting. <shakes head> - Denimadept (talk) 04:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That makes two difficult personalities (inclined to be antagonistic) we've encountered in one week. A little quiet time would be nice. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

William of Occam might suggest they were the same person. I'm not that paranoid, though. Hanlon's razor seems more likely, with the modification in this case of a lack of experience instead of stupidity. - Denimadept (talk) 04:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Quote

Its a quote, please change back to a small "a" in: "[the Oslo Accords]" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

As shown by the brackets, it's an aside from his quoted words, supplied by someone else. Not part of the quote, but a reporter's clarification. I see no harm in correcting that person's syntax, and believe we should. Good enough, I hope. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Avira Security Software

An article that you have been involved in editing, Avira Security Software, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going to the article and clicking on the (Discuss) link at the top of the article, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 14:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC) PlantRunner (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for improving the INN article.RS101 (talk) 05:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

He is banned

he has no right to keep on coming back editing talkpages. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I know he is banned. Has this IP officially been determined to be his sock? Last I looked, it had not. Hertz1888 (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

"this is clear that the above IP is Drork", please remove his comments from the GH talkpage that you reinserted. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

On further consideration, I suggest we focus on the validity of the information, regardless of who introduced it. "Comment on content, not on the contributor". The entries in question are not vandalistic and contain potentially helpful resources. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

He has no right to do any edit at any article or talkpage. You have now changed your reason to keep the edit, that's filibustering. You have helped a banned editor evade his block. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not obligated to help you suppress information not to your liking. No one is stopping you from doing that without my help. Hertz1888 (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not "suppressing information not to my liking", its edits he had no right to make, and you reinserted it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not preventing you or anyone else from removing it again. Hertz1888 (talk) 15:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous user at Jerusalem

User:85.93.203.235's edits at Jerusalem do not meet the definition of WP:Vandalism. Please refrain from using the vandalism user warning series for this type of edit. I have reported the anonymous user for violating WP:3RR. Please consider instead using an applicable user warning, or writing a personal message. --Bsherr (talk) 18:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok - thanks. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For your clear and concise commentary when addressing disagreements on sensitive subjects. nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 02:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Era wars

You might want to make sure all four of those articles are on your watch list. Looks like they're the honeypot for era warriors. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Happy to help. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Nava Applebaum

thank you for your help with the article. i did not focus as much on the grammar, sentence structure, etc. as i should have.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thank you for your extensive and ongoing efforts to develop and defend the article. Hopefully it will survive and there will be ample time to work out the kinks. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

"Israelites" in modern Judaism

Why did you take it down? Are you going to put up the gibberish that doesn't make any sense? Cause from where I'm standing, Everything I just said can be proved if you know your history? Shall I explain? The Bible and History go together.

Didn't know how else to contact you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.181.13.66 (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Your edit was reverted as an apparent violation of multiple Wikipedia policies, principally as given at WP:NOR, WP:SOAP and WP:V. Please familiarize yourself with these policies before making further edits. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Nava Applebaum

--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Kudos to you! DYK drew a respectable number of hits (not quite 5,000). Hertz1888 (talk) 02:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I was a bit disappointed, especially after my prior DYK hit 5.8k[3] But maybe i'm getting spoiled, it is quite a respectable number. thanks again for your help.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Bean Episodes

Mr. Bean on Blue Peter

Hello, Thank you for your activities on the Mr. Bean Episodes Page. Do you have any videos of Mr. Bean at Blue Peter? I'm a great fan of Mr. Bean and i collect every bit. Thank you for looking falk85570 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falk85570 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I wish I could help, but have no such videos Thanks for your message and good luck in your quest. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Administrator intervention against vandalism

Thanks for your report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism about User:Candy853. It is so helpful to have a report which explains so clearly what the situation is, instead of the all too common vague reports that leave an admin to spend time searching to find out what the person reporting already knew and could easily have said. I have indefinitely blocked the vandal. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You are most welcome, and for my part I thank you for your prompt action against this runaway marauder. All the best, Hertz1888 (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the rollback of vandalism from my user page.Sentinel R (talk) 12:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#Just_curious Sean.hoyland - talk 06:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

חַג חֲנֻכָּה שָׂמֵחַ

הַנֵּרוֹת הַלָּלוּ קֹדֶשׁ הֵם

Hi Hertz! Hoping you and yours are spiritually warmed by the holy lights of
חֲנֻכָּה

Chesdovi 2010

1RR in Jerusalem

Hello, Hertz. Do you realize that you've just violated 1RR yourself? Instead of you I'd quickly self-revert and take the anonymous user to AE. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, ECChe. I appreciate the warning, but plead not guilty. As it says in the AE template (copy at top of Talk:Jerusalem), "Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty". Those exceptions would seem to cover this situation more than adequately. Very best, Hertz1888 (talk) 01:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, thank you for the explanation. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Hertz.... I want to introduce myself. My name is Nate. I noticed that you are an active editor and participant to the article on Radio. Let me say congrats on the great work that you do. The reason why I am writing to you is to give a fair warning. A few days ago I made an edit or two to the article on the Marconi vs. U.S. case that essentially gave the radio patent to Tesla in 1943. The references I gave as you probably saw, were reliable and verifiable. however as you also probably saw, I think I may have stirred the pot. Anything pinning Tesla to the underlying principles of radio is never acceptable to another editor on that article, Magnagr. So I wanted to warn you. I have fought him tooth and nail for over a year over this agonizing subject. I've reverted several of his unsourced edits, but he will not rest until he fulfills his agenda. His current user name is not even his first as he has several registered accounts on Wikipedia. I have a feeling that nationaliatic pride is also playing at hand here with him as I think he told me once that he was Italian. Hence, that is why he would want to only accredit Marconi as the sole contributor to radio. So it is just a warning. You and the others should be prepared to fight this with him as he will never stop. I gave up a long time ago. I have radio on my watch list so I will be following along and keeping my eyes open to the edits he makes. But you should as well pay very very close attention what he does. If i can be of any help or assistance, please contact me at your leisure. Yoganate79 (talk) 01:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Nate, Thanks for your patience, and please forgive my delay in replying. I appreciate hearing from you. I will heed the warning and be extra vigilant. He comes across as a POV pushing warrior, using WP as a battleground. (As you may have seen, he explicitly threatened continued edit war and, if necessary, "atomic war" if he did not get his way.) I'm sorry his disruption has caused you so much frustration. He continues to waste others' time. You mentioned the existence of other registered accounts. If you have any evidence that he is abusing these multiple accounts we can file a complaint. Meanwhile, I see that other editors are trying to keep him in check. I will try to do my part. Very best, Hertz1888 (talk) 03:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Brookline

STOP DELETING MY POSTS ON BROOKLINE, MA! I will notify administrators if you continue to delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbybo123 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

If you continue to violate the guidelines and policies on notability (see, for example, WP:NLIST), you will be the one reported. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I suppose that CEOs and founders of multi-billion dollar companies aren't noteworthy! Good call moron. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbybo123 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Religious text primary

A TFD has been opened on Template:Religious text primary. The TfD was opened on 2 December; so is due to close in two days time. Notification being sent to all participants in the previous discussion Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_July_30#Template:BibleAsFact. Jheald (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

ANI Notification: 1RR at Jerusalem

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Korruski^Talk 10:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Brooklyn Bridge

My bad. Not sure how I missed that. Thanks for catching it. Doniago (talk) 19:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. We all make misteaks. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry, merry

Bzuk (talk) 13:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you please participate in this discussion?

[[4]]. Thanks. -asad (talk) 20:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Back Bay

In all seriousness, I have no idea to what sarcasm you refer, nor to what phrase. [5] Please enlighten. I like your work, BTW. EEng (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Twelve minutes after I added "Shawmut Peninsula on which Boston was built", you took away the latter phrase and left your "Oh, we are so very, VERY clever, are we not?" comment. I was too taken aback to scroll down and see the other changes to which you might have been referring. It's an unfortunate coincidence combined with a misunderstanding. You are knowledgeable, but your comment could be misconstrued, and was. No big deal; please carry on. By the way, I have been delighting in the brownstones photo, as art and a visual feast, ever since it first appeared, but then again, I've never seen Daly City. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad we've cleared this up. The removal of your phrase was inadvertant -- an edit conflict. My "very, VERY clever" comments were self-deprecating references to my own addition to the article of the following, allocable to my almost addictive adulation for alliteration: "A 1903 guidebook noted the trisyllabic-disyllabic alternation attending aforesaid alphabetic appellations." I'll be interested to see how long that remains.

As to the photo, to me it presents Back Bay's houses from the worst possible vantage, looking all skinny and squished as if perchjed on a steep hillside, their ugly rooftop mechanical private parts shamelessly exposed. EEng (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

U.S.Navy Interfaith Service

Do you think the section "U.S.Navy Interfaith Service" at Western Wall is correctly displayed? I am wondering whether too much prominence is given to this 10 minute, rather unnotable occurance in the history of the wall. See here. Chesdovi (talk) 11:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Puerto Ricans in the United States

Thanks for your edits HERE. I had similar reaction to edits HERE and HERE. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Brattle Street (Cambridge, Massachusetts)

Hertz, thanks so much for your kind words about Brattle Street. Now that I have gotten a bit further along, I think I will actually take your earlier suggestion about merging Tory Row into the article. But not yet, I am still running around getting this one done.

I see you have a lot of experience in Cambridge articles. Do you want to collaborate on this one? If you help me expand it, we could go together to ask for a DYK on it. Or Maybe even a featured article down the road. There are a lot of great images that could be added.

One of the glaring omissions I see right now is that I have put in nothing about Longfellow House, which has good stories both from the 18th and 19th centuries. But I'm going to sleep now anyway.betsythedevine (talk) 07:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation, Betsy; I very much appreciate it. I would like to continue making tweaks and modest additions, and possibly offering occasional suggestions and what I hope will be constructive criticism. As for fuller collaboration, with research, I will have to forgo that, on account of already being spread too thin and seriously backlogged, both on and off Wikipedia; my regrets. You seem to be off to a strong start on your own, and I see other editors have been dropping by with support. Here's to healthy development of this and associated articles. Thanks again. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see the article has just been upgraded. Definitely no longer a stub. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but what for

Hi Hertz1888, thanks for fixing the article, but may I please ask you why to you waste your time on the article that is witch-hunted on AFD, AN/I , DYK suggestions page and a few user talk pages, and that is certain to get deleted? Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Is it certain? I didn't realize the situation was that hopeless. If I hurry and cast a vote for keeping it, maybe that will tip the balance? If it does get deleted, at least it goes out looking very respectable. In regard to content, I think you are revealing some fundamental truths, of the kind that are bound to disturb many who would prefer to hide them, or to hide from them. All the best, Hertz1888 (talk) 07:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is actually a very interesting effect. If for nothing else, I am glad I wrote the article just to be able to observe this effect. The DR was going on more or less evenhanded for 4 days before the link to it was added to AN/I. After that in a mater of 4-5 hours around 20 users including a few administrators, one, who came back from retirement, and one IP, voted to delete the article, and only one did not join the mob the community and voted to keep it. Your vote on DR will not make any difference, but if you have a time, I'd like to ask you to vote or to write a comment, no, not for the article to be saved, but for the history of that amazing AFD. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Loudness monitoring

At Loudness monitoring I reverted your addition of a manufacturer's product line link. I felt it was promotional. Binksternet (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I was surprised that their type of monitor (which is in widespread use) was not mentioned in the article, and hoped that the external link would be a prelude to in-text coverage. The page I chose is the least promotional I could find on their site. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Breaking a way

Sorry for the trouble. What I did to "Breaking Away" was an experiment to prove to all my friends who call wikipedia an unreliable source how quickly any unverified changes are reverted. Since you reverted both my changes within about 10 minutes, I don't think they'll talk down to wikipedia so much anymore.

Keep it up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.18.161 (talk) 06:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I'm glad there was a positive outcome, even though you made your point through an unacceptable method. WP is a very large project, and there are many pairs of eyes monitoring changes. Perhaps you would consider impressing your friends even more by doing some legitimate editing. You might find Wikipedia:Introduction of interest. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Silver Streak plot summary

Hi Hertz. Please don't take this too hard, but what in the world were you thinking? Have you seen the film? It's complex, fast-paced, and at least ten percent longer than the average feature film. Believe me, the current "summary" excludes tons of material and is the minimum amount of content that clearly explains the story.
> If you can think of a better way to keep clumsy IPs from making this plot "summary" even longer, go for it.
The only answer is to ban IPs completely. I heartily favor that approach, but I have no control over it. Also, the IP issue is unrelated to your message-box edit. I approve of every word in that summary, and I wrote many of them myself.
> Not a joke and kindly AGF.
Okay, assuming good faith on your part, I have to assume some kind of carelessness or lack of competence. I would ask you to please be more careful in selecting 650-word plot summaries to be labeled as too long or detailed. This film is long, fast, and complex, so a shorter summary wouldn't do it justice. 650 words is well within the 400-700 word guideline, and there are lots of summaries on Wikipedia that are much longer and include more unimportant detail for shorter, slower, and/or simpler stories. If you haven't seen the film, I would ask you to watch films before declaring their summaries too long, because some stories are inherently long and/or complex.
If your message-box edit was just a brief aberration, then please don't take this reply too seriously. I spend almost all of my Wikipedia time reading and deleting IP edits, and my highest priority on Wikipedia is keeping film plot summaries clear and concise. If you still think part of the current Silver Streak summary is too detailed, please be very specific about what it is and why you think it's unimportant, because I've already spent a lot of time paring it down to its current size.
Have a nice day.
—Coder Dan (talk) 04:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you give everyone such a lecture? It would have sufficed to say "length not excessive considering film's complexity". Turning this into a questioning of competence is going way too far. I have seen the film. I have been policing the article against return visits by an IP editor who damages it repeatedly. If this is the thanks I get, you can have the job. Don't bother to reply. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I only lecture people when they make glaring mistakes, and please don't use IPs as an excuse for mistakes of your own. You complain when I question your good faith, and you complain when I question your competence, and yet calling that summary long is patently absurd. As I already said, if it was just a moment of carelessness, don't worry about it. You and I are on the same team as long as you don't make bizarre criticisms of my own editing. Take care. —Coder Dan (talk) 08:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)