User talk:Hertz1888/Archive 9

My apologies

I'm terribly sorry if in my edit your usual constructive work was overlooked. I'm slow at these things, often busy and did make a list of the things to save, which I then began searching to save. Somehow I stuffed up. No excuses. I'll suspend myself for a day.Nishidani (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I join this apology. Settleman (talk) 21:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani and Settleman: Thanks to you both for saying so. Looks like two more votes for collaborative editing at its finest. No suspensions necessary today. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remove

Hello. Why would you want to remove that section at Talk:Al-Aqsa Mosque? It is not vandalism, even though it is a little peculiar. Debresser (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Debresser: I regard it as using the talk page as a forum, possibly also as trolling. If you disagree, please feel free to restore it, or I can. Best wishes, Hertz1888 (talk) 00:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're probably right. I tend to be pretty liberal about talkpage. Debresser (talk) 12:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aptronym

Hey there! I'm sure you're aware, but just in case a friendly reminder if you'd like to weigh in at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aptronym. Cheers, JesseRafe (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Santorini

Hi Hertz1888! I really appreciate that you took the time and looked over my Santorini edits, but I would really appreciate more if you would go through the article in detail and see that nothing has been deleted, and that the whole Recent volcanism section is under the Geography section. Thank you! Wikipediauser993 (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)wikipediauser993[reply]

@Wikipediauser993: Everything that was there before seems to be there now, but it is hard to know for certain due to the many intervening edits. If I may offer some advice: You apparently copied major content from one section to another on one day and deleted it from the original section more than 24 hours later. This confused a whole series of editors who saw only the deletion and suspected vandalism. Taking related actions closer together in time (almost immediately) – and consistently leaving edit summaries – would help avoid future confusion. With best wishes, Hertz1888 (talk) 02:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ESB info

Hi,

Thanks for cleaning up my edits in the ESB article. Regarding the floor count, it's difficult to cite a reference adhering to WP:RS standards because ESB's press releases use 102/103 for marketing purposes. The Skyscraper Museum did have an exhibit on the ESB, I also uploaded a cross-section diagram and appended it to the article. I've visited the ESB in person multiple times. When the mooring mast's elevator malfunctioned, visitors got redirected to the stairs, which made it apparent there weren't actual floors in that mast. 06:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaaaaabbbbb111 (talk • contribs)

Please wait until...

In a few minutes -- certainly within the hour -- an automated script will run at the Brighton Beach article, to fill in all of the bare URLs, and to check each for being dead or not. Can you wait with further edits until this is finished? The attempt is to make all citations uniform, and at same time check them for broken links. The check will run in automated fashion, by Bull Rangifer, in response to the article bare URLs tag. Please hold a bit before launching in, thanks. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note that, as a scholar, the inline tags placed are to mark places where, because of no inline tag, or ambiguous placement of the inline tags, I am unsure as to source of the information. Inline tags are not obviated by the appearance of section tags. Inline tags actually point editors to specific points to pay attention—and can be removed, one at a time, if the nearest source is checked, to see the content supported, otherwise left until the information is sourced.

Moreover—and this is why I place them—it warms student readers to think twice about what is being said in a sentence, because a scholarly editor has indicated a lack of clarity of the attribution of the content. Yes, it makes for less clean text. But it makes for more honest text, until the material is checked against sources. Since this is the first attention to much of this material since 2009, it is worth having a second look (at dead links, and proper placement of inline citations). Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry. I won't interfere further. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish peoplehood

I just wanted to clarify why I made the change in the opening sentence of the article Jewish peoplehood from "the awareness of the underlying unity that makes an individual Jew a part of the Jewish people" to "the awareness of the underlying unity that makes an individual person a part of the Jewish people". My reasoning is that not every person who could be called part of the "Jewish people" is necessarily, according to Judaism or self-identification, a Jew. Take the children of Jewish fathers and Gentile mothers. They may grow up with a very strong sense of Jewish peoplehood, belonging and/or identity, but that doesn't mean they necessarily consider themselves Jews, and unless they undergo formal religious conversion mainstream Judaism would not consider them Jews either. — Cliftonian (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your solution, to take the redundant word out, is better. Thanks for that. — Cliftonian (talk) 15:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How would you like to do a nice GA review?

[1] EEng (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Mobile phone radiation and health

After User:Monquaylob edited Mobile phone radiation and health you added some tags about sources, spelling, and grammar. I felt the addition by Monquaylob just had too many factual errors and misleading phrases to remain (not to mention the spelling and grammar detracting from the credibility of the edits), so I reverted the changes. Your changes were reverted too. I wasn't sure if you think the tags are still needed after the revert. Please put them back if you think they are still warranted. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad it's gone. Thanks for the peremptory removal and your courtesy message here. No further need for the tags. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ionospheres

I think this is how I'm supposed to communicate with you about the edits on the ionospheres page. Revert if you really want but I'm trying to be bold and help. It doesn't feel very welcoming. If you don't like me removing the embarrassingly incomplete text maybe you can add it into what I added. Thanks. If I can I'll try remember my log-in for wikipedia which I haven't used for literally years. 108.51.207.160 (talk) 03:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've logged in now. Sorry that meant it was harder to communicate. Editing now. Jespley (talk) 03:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've added back the hyperlinks but didn't remember how to easily make them embedded hyperlinks. The text now contains my descriptive opening statement, the info on Titan, and a list of some other links. Sorry to leave it kind of a mess. My hope that the article is slightly better now. Jespley (talk) 04:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CE/BCE

Explain to me why you seek to remove the points I made on the BCE/CE debate. Are you an opponent of free speech? By the way, I will put the comments back every time they are deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T A Francis (talk • contribs) 16:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@T A Francis: I have not taken sides regarding the content of your comments, and do not intend to do so. As I have indicated in the edit summaries, you are posting your remarks in a debate that was closed and archived nine years ago. The proposal failed, and no discussion has taken place on its talk page in several years. There is, however, a related discussion currently underway at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#B.2FCE in religious scriptures.3F, where you are more likely to get a response.

Rest assured that if you ever vandalize my talk page again I shall report you. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Report? To whom? With what effect? Just because a debate has been 'archived', does not mean the issue is dead. Additionally, I might just have joined Wikipedia and may only just have noticed the issue. Do you mean to exclude new members from joining in a debate just because it has been archived? T A Francis (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@T A Francis: You are wasting your time there; no one is likely to respond. It's an obsolete page. Exclude you? On the contrary, I have tried to be helpful by giving you the location of a current discussion.

The report would be to WP administrators, for vandalism, such as your blanking of this page; you could lose editing privileges. Let's hope such a report will not be necessary. I suggest you read WP:AGF and curb your evident hostility. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

T A Francis, you need to calm down. You're new here, and need to listen to experienced editors when they try to help you learn how things work. No one's saying you can't raise the issue again for discussion, but you can't go back and tamper with the record of an old discussion. If you want to discuss this, follow the link Hertz gave above, and join in. Understand, however, that the more you talk about free speech (this is a private site, and there's no "free speech" here as there is on a public streetcorner) or SHOUT IN ALL CAPS, or accuse others of excluding you, the more people will ignore you and the more frustrated you will find yourself. Read carefully, and comment carefully. EEng (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down? How patronising. And I am not 'new' here having used the Wikipedia since its inception.

Regarding the BC/AD vs BCE/CE issue, please note that the German Wikipedia uses v. Chr / n. Chr (vor Christus, before Christ, and nach Christus (Christi Geburt)) almost exclusively. Whether I need to 'calm down' or not, I shall not contribute to Wikipedia - I get portions of my screen begging for money almost every time I visit the site - whilst it persists in this ridiculous political correctness. But Wikipedia is rather like Kafka's Castle, one cannot find the centre: there is no communication with those who run the show or any guarantee they even acknowledge such messages, let alone justify their position or engage directly in a debate.T A Francis (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not German Wikipedia. How things are done there is not entirely relevant. Personally, I think dates should be "before FSM" and "after FSM". - Denimadept (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

T A Francis, this is not the place to discuss the era-style issue or to complain about other WP policies. There are appropriate talk pages for both. As a volunteer participant (which we all are), I decline to host further discussion related to either topic. We're done here. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pentecost

Hello, Hertz1888 -- I have just begun to read the article on Pentecost. In the section Pentecost#Old Testament is the following sentence:

Pentecost is the old Greek and Latin name for the Jewish, (Hebrew חג השבועות Hag haShavuot or Shevuot, literally "Festival of the Weeks"), which can be found in the Hebrew Bible.

I noticed that while this sentence has "Hag haShavuot", the next sentence has both "chag ha-Shavuot" and "chag ha-Katsir". I wondered if the "Hag ha" should be "Chag ha" or "chag ha". Also, part of the first sentence and the first half of the second sentence seem to repeat the same information. I'm wondering if you could take a look at this and make any necessary corrections. Corinne (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Corinne. I did some doctoring of the section and hope you will be pleased with the results. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's much clearer now. Thank you. At the risk of seeming too particular about things, I'm wondering if "agricultural or harvest theme" (or even "agricultural and harvest theme") would be clearer than "agricultural, harvest theme". Corinne (talk) 23:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. I'm not sure which works best, either "and" or just to omit the comma. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ask a knowledgeable editor. Rothorpe What do you think is the best wording here? Corinne (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's OK, if a little odd, as 'agricultural' includes 'harvest'. Perhaps just leave out 'agricultural': I note that the Book of Ruth includes mention of a harvest. Rothorpe (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see Hertz has changed it. It reads very well now, don't you think? Corinne (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed. Rothorpe (talk) 13:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hadrian

Hello, Hertz1888! I have just about finished a thorough copy-edit of Hadrian, and I have a question for you:

In the second paragraph in the section Hadrian#In Rabbinic literature is the following sentence:

When queried by his soldiers as to why he did this, Hadrian responded with a dual verse from the book of Isaiah in praise of the nation of Israel: "So says God the redeemer of Israel to the downtrodden soul to the (made) repulsive nation, kings will view and stand."

I wondered what "a dual verse" meant. In what sense is it dual? Does it mean two adjacent verses, or is it dual in the sense that it conveys two meanings? Do you think the phrase "a dual verse" is clear enough for the average WP reader? Also, do you think the quote is the best possible translation, with those two phrases beginning "to" in succession? Corinne (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Corinne:: So sorry to have neglected replying for so long; I thought I had. I wish I could help with the edit, but am out of my element with this topic and was unable to find relevant information. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. Thanks! I was wondering why you hadn't replied, thinking maybe you thought the question was silly, but now I see that that is not the case, so that's good. Corinne (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what??

What vandalism are you claiming I committed? [2] Jeppiz (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None - sorry - I pushed the wrong button. Have a look - it should be fixed now. The IP (and you) missed one instance. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I was just a bit confused. Jeppiz (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Green Line (MBTA)

Hello! I noticed you've been a regular editor on Green Line (MBTA) (thank you for the rewording in the top section) - I recently (within the last hour, in fact) nominated this article for GA status. I wanted to check in and see if you agree that this article would pass muster upon review, or if there is work that could still be done before it would receive GA status. Your comments/expertise is appreciated! Thanks, Garchy (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings to you. I'll be happy to look at the article in fine detail as soon as I've taken care of some earlier promises, meaning probably not today. Thanks for all your clearly intensive work on it. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Take your time, after consulting with another editor we decided it was best to put the GA nomination on hold to allow more work elaborating on the "History" section, and adding inline citations. Thanks again! Garchy (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Lawrence

Your reference said he was on the Planter in 1635. But there were 2 John Lawrence's at this time. One went to New York. The Lawrence on the Planter was 17 so he must have been the New York one since John of Mass. was born in 1609. The book "New England Marriages Prior to 1700" shows the marriage of John and his first wife, Elizabeth (Cooke) of Groton in 1635 and she died in 1663. His first son was born in March 14, 1636. He could not have arrived, married and have a son by Mar. 1636 if he arrived on the Planter in 1636 or even 1635. the national society of founding daughter vol 6 says he arrived 1630. they do extensive research before they admit members. Mgmcs (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mgmcs: Maybe and maybe not. All this might matter if you were writing an article about Lawrence, but not in the context of this one- or two-liner listing. It's not even clear to me why he should be included in the first place; I see nothing to make him notable, other than for settling in Watertown early in its history. It seems to me the current wording is evenhanded (in view of possibly irreconcilable sources) and more than sufficient to note him as an early resident. I suggest it is time to move on to other topics. Best wishes. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ok

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgmcs2 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Realize

You made a change on Downton Abbey, altering "realize" to "realise". [3] and [4] suggest that was not necessary. I have not undone your edit; you may (or may not) wish to do so. Bazza (talk) 16:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wish. It is spelled -ise in two other places in the same section. Consistency demanded changing either the new one or the two others. Thanks to you I now realize the UK spelling is ambiguous. Hertz1888 (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

:-) Good call on consistency. Bazza (talk) 10:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for deletion

The recently created Israel Palestine conflict page is nominated for deletion in connection to the preceding community discussion. You are welcome to express your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel Palestine conflict.GreyShark (dibra) 14:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please save

June 23 about 5pm on for the event I mentioned a long time ago. Details once it's all settled. Hope you can make it. E Eng 15:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted, saved, looking forward, etc. Thanks for not giving up on me. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[5] Note you need to register. E Eng 19:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ping, just to be sure you see this. E Eng 17:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Registered! Hertz1888 (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing for trivia on longevity biographies

Hi, just letting you know that for articles on supercentenarians it has been agreed that stating that an individual is the "xxth oldest" requires a RS which states that explicitly, merely looking at a list and copying/calculating their position in that list is inadequate. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining this to me. I am surprised, though, because that particular list is based on research and verification. Ok, that's that. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hertz, take my word for it: stay away from longevity, a bizarre sockpuppet COI sideshow -- and that in no way refers to DerbycountyinNZ -- which defies description. It's no hyperbole to say it's been one of the top 5 sinkholes of editor time over the years. I recommend you spend your time somewhere where there are fewer socks and fewer RIGHTGREATWRONG warriors; for example, you could go back to concentrating on editing topics related to the Middle East. E Eng 00:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC) DerbyCountyinNZ, am I exaggerating?[reply]

Twilight

Please do not uncoonditionally remove correct statements by other users such as the moonlight phrase on nautical twilight, but rather send a message. S k a t e b i k e r (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The message is in the edit summary. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Twilight question

Hello Mr. Hertz: I am having a brain fart this morning about dusk. We know that dusk has enough light still left to see things, and is better known as Astronomical Twilight. There was an edit made in the Sunset article, and then corrected by Doenwilliams. (He's no science dummy). However, the sentence still bothers me, and I think it needs to be re-written to clarify. This is how it stands right now: "Sunset is distinct from dusk, which is the time when the sky becomes completely dark (apart from artificial light). This occurs when the Sun is about 18 degrees below the horizon. The period between sunset and dusk is called twilight". The part that bothers me is that it seems to imply that all light is gone at dusk. Can you re-word that sentence in the article so a science dummy like me understands it. The way it is now, seems to contradict, if not eliminate Astronomical twilight. ..... or...I just didn't get enough sleep last night. Also... why does everyone seem to have different opinions about the times of these twilight events? Between reading dusk,dawn, twilight and sunset, I'm more confused than when I started to read them...lol. Can you imagine some grammar school-er trying to make sense of this nonsense? - Thanks - Pocketthis (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just made the corrections. I'll know you approve if you don't reverse me. :-) I think it is much clearer now. Got antsy waiting to hear back from you. I don't like doing science edits, but I think I may have nailed this one. Thanks - Pocketthis (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Pocketthis: I'm glad we now agree. Common usage of the term "dusk" certainly varies, so I did some research too, and found here the unambiguous statement that "Astronomical dusk is the instant when the geographical center of the Sun is at 18 degrees below the horizon. After this point, the sky is no longer illuminated." [emphasis added]. Our present wording is, I believe, fully consistent with this and both graphics at Dusk, one of which appears at Sunset. Best wishes, Hertz1888 (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way we can mention how long dusk actually is? Is it a second?, a minute?. It is still pretty vague in that respect. I am not a science major, and the research on this is flimsy at best.

Also, I copied this from the Dusk article:

"The time of dusk can be thought of relative to the time of twilight, which has several alternative technical definitions":

   Dusk as the last part of civil twilight ends when the sun is 6 degrees below the horizon in the evening. At this time objects are distinguishable and some stars and planets are visible to the naked eye.
   Dusk as the last part of nautical twilight ends when the sun is 12 degrees below the horizon in the evening. At this time, objects are no longer distinguishable, and the horizon is no longer visible to the naked eye.
   Dusk as the last part of astronomical twilight ends when the sun is 18 degrees below the horizon in the evening. At this time the sun no longer illuminates the sky, and thus no longer interferes with astronomical observations.

According to the Dusk article, Dust is the entire period of time during the 3 twilight stages. How can we perpetrate nonsense like this on the public, if dusk is actually just a flash after Astronomical Twilight? I think we owe it to our readers to "get it right", or we should just consider ourselves a joke and quit. All twilight related articles MUST give the same information if we are to be taken seriously. My two cents. We must all get together and decide if we are writing a "novel" or an encyclopedia.

According to Webster: Full Definition of dusk

   1
   :  the darker part of twilight especially at night

This would indicate that astronomical twilight as I originally posted would be correct. So we better get all of our apples in one cart. I certainly have no intention of reverting you, but I also don't want this issue to be "opinion". I want us all to agree on the FACTS what ever they are. Pocketthis (talk) 18:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assorted quick comments: I'm not sure one dictionary's definition counts as the last word or even a WP:RS. I think you are relying too heavily on it. I would give more weight to a site such as this one. I don't think it is vague to represent dusk as a transition point. (How long is noon?) However, comments at Talk:Dusk suggest that the pair of charts may be faulty. Also, it seems to me that their captions clash with the graphics. There is definitely room for better clarity all around. We should try to all agree on "the facts" (at least find a consensus) before plunging ahead with further changes. I believe further discussion belongs on Talk:Dusk (not here), with a note at Talk:Sunset so that interested parties watching Sunset can join in if they wish. I won't be able to put much more time (if any) into this topic today. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well, I took all of my research from every encyclopedia and dictionary, and came up with a description almost exactly as yours. I also went into the related articles, and made them all say approximately the same thing. I couldn't live with conflicting definitions on the same encyclopedia. From now on, if and when we all agree on a change in one of them, they will "all" have to be changed, or I'm going to have to consider a stay at a loony farm for a while. There is no excuse for conflicting info here. We are linking from one article to another that has conflicting info. At least, at the moment, the three articles appear to jive, and for now that is a good thing. Let's be honest... the Dusk article was just plain ridiculous, and obviously POV of the novelist who wrote it. P.S. Noon is exactly 60 seconds long. It ends at 12:01 PM. I am a 3rd generation Master watchmaker. :-) Thanks as usual my friend - Pocketthis (talk) 19:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Schvartze

It's a sad day in Wikipedia history when an editor is threatened with being banned for sharing the knowledge that "schvartze" is an offensive, racist slur. I hear my grandparent saying "schvartze" on a regular basis and no matter how hard I try to convince her that it's an offensive, racist slur, she refuses to believe me. There are still people in this world who believe that it isn't offensive and for you and the other reverter of my edits to censor this information (while somehow claiming that I'm the one censoring Wikipedia, however illogical that is), is defending racists regardless of its intent. BenStein69 (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BenStein69: By me that was not a threat but a warning meant to protect you and guide you into proper channels. Regardless of the merits of your edit and concern, repeatedly pushing the same edit back into the article, after reversion, can get you in trouble. Opening a discussion on the article's talk page and addressing the reasons given for the reversion is a better way to go. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kilometers (kilometres) per hour

Just as a heads up, you are both right on this. I assume one of you is from the UK where it is kilometres and the other is from the US where it is kilometers. So I wouldn't get too worked up over this. Happy posting!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanEG (talk • contribs)

Aptronym

Hey there, I don't know if you still watch the page, but there's a discussion at Talk:Aptronym that you may want to weigh in on. I don't know your whole wikipedia philosophy, but it seemed that you, like me, approached and used consensus in a not always strictly-defined by endless Talk Page debates with disinterested editors way, but more naturally, such as by edit summaries. A user who just happened on the page randomly it seems is now trying to shoehorn in a definition of consensus where one wasn't needed as the article had an ebb and flow of entries. Your input would be appreciated. Cheers, JesseRafe (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boston edit

That was an accident. I went to hit something else and it asked if I wanted to roll back your edit. I thought I hit cancel, but I guess not. I don't even know what the error is. Sorry about that. It's hard editing on phones.Stereorock (talk) 04:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've had similar accidents in my time, and understand. Thanks for the apology! Hertz1888 (talk) 05:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Josephus edit

Please stop you r disruptive behaviour. It appears you are purposefully harassing another editor. Wikipedia aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users, as you did on Josephus, potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. Bobbydgo (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobbydgo:Not funny. Informing you of the rules does not constitute harassment. If you choose to disregard those rules after twice being politely notified, the choice is yours to comply or receive warnings. Per WP:ERA, both date formats are acceptable; changing from one to the other without consensus is not. If you wish to change the established format, the proper channel is to seek editorial consensus for the change using the article's talk page. Repeatedly making your edit after it has been reverted can lead to your being cited for edit warring. Please try to avoid such unpleasantness by following Wikipedia rules and policies. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

: @Hertz1888:I am not attempting to be humorous. Please refrain from further continued contact on my talk page, as I do consider your continued posts/messages as harassment. Bobbydgo (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobbydgo:, what Hertz is doing is the proper procedure when responding to someone who is disruptively editing. They are not harassing you whatsoever. Hertz is being nice, so let me be blunt: cut the crap and stop the bad edits. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi.1415926535:, "Cut the crap" is neither a professional nor acceptable manner to address this situation. Using this tone is intentionally aggressive, and also can be considered harassment. Allow me to be equally blunt: Discontinue this personal and inappropriate approach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbydgo (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is staffed by volunteers, not "professionals"
Whether something is harassment depends on whether it's harassment, not whether you consider it to be harassment.
If you don't cut the crap, you're going to be out on your ass. Capeesh?

E Eng 00:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi.1415926535: Discontinue with your idle threats. Grow up. Learn to spell properly. Show some real courage and step out from behind your keyboard if you're going to put me "on my ass". Or silence yourself. Capisce?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbydgo (talk • contribs)

You seem to have mixed poor Pi up with me. In any event, the important thing is that you've stopped edit-warring over AD vs CE; in the time you save, you might familiarize yourself with the concept of register (sociolinguistics) as it relates to spelling and diction. I'm going to suggest to my esteemed fellow editors that we just let Bobby have the last word now. If he resumes the edit war notify any friendly neighborhood admin for a block. This kind of editor Wikipedia doesn't need. E Eng 07:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Denimadept (talk) has given you some popcorn. Popcorn is crunchy goodness, and is wonderfully delicious!

I'm just sitting back and watching this.

To spread the goodness of popcorn, you can add {{subst:Popcorn}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message.

- Denimadept (talk) 04:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing time. This discussion has been hosted—involuntarily—on this page far too long. Instigator is wasting own time and energy and everybody else's here. Time to shut it down. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Worry not. I've put in for his block. E Eng 07:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stone Zoo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Black bear. 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) 09:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrote vs. Postulated

Google defines postulate as suggest or assume the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.

See WP:SAID

- ... reveal, point out, expose, explain, find, note, observe, insist, speculate, surmise, claim, assert, admit, confess, deny, clarify ...

Said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more loaded terms. For example, to write that a person clarified, explained, exposed, found, pointed out, or revealed something can imply that it is true, where a neutral account might preclude such an endorsement. To write that someone insisted, noted, observed, speculated, or surmised can suggest the degree of the speaker's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence when that is unverifiable.

It's okay to use generic terms. Generic terms can make the articles more neutral and accurate. Wikipedia doesn't want to use loaded terms that can introduce bias. I know that this isn't Simple English Wikipedia, but that's no excuse to use a bunch of loaded terms to either suggest that something could be a good idea, bad idea, wrong idea or correct idea in Wikipedia articles. See WP:NPOV. --Turkeybutt (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Generic terms can also blunt sharp, informative writing into dull imprecision. Einstein didn't just write that the speed of light is constant, the way he'd write that he had eggs for breakfast -- he postulated it, and played out the consequences. See [6]. E Eng 19:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Financial District, Boston for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Financial District, Boston is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Financial District, Boston 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylr00 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ARBPIA3 enforcement

I noticed you today reverted an edit by user Orasis here - [7]. That user is not allowed to edit that article at all, per the restriction laid down by the arbitration committee in WP:ARBPIA3. I have already notified him of the restriction last month and asked him to edit elsewhere until he reached 500 edits, but he simply ignores this. Enforcement of the restriction is "Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year." - could you provide such a block? Epson Salts (talk) 23:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Epson Salts: Sorry, I am not an administrator. I believe you would have to seek that block through WP:AE. It should not be difficult to make a case against a flagrant violator. In the meantime, if I see him continuing to edit against the restriction, I will revert on that basis. Best wishes, Hertz1888 (talk) 01:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks, my mistake. I'll take it to WP:AE if it recurs. Epson Salts (talk) 01:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Zion

Please do not revert my edits before reading the edit summary. There are topographic standards for describing Geographic features. One of these, also given in the Wikiepdia hill article, is that any elevation over 610m above sea level is considered a mountain, even if a low one. Moreover, in this case the mountain has two peaks (see also UIAA definition, divided by a ravine, commonly refereed to as a Saddle (landform). In fact the current ravine is much shallower than the original form because it had been filled in to elevate the peak. And, the reference provided does not use capitals to identify the features as Geographic, but refers to them as topographic features, i.e. western and eastern. Crock81 (talk) 10:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had read the edit summary. I just did not buy it. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:32, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As seen in the subsequent edit histor, you seem to be alone in this view. E Eng 13:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given there are only two editors participating, this is unsurprising mathematics.

See talk there Crock81 (talk) 01:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Responded to there. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:32, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But the point remains that your argument is not only OR, it's not backed up by the very article you cite, Hill, which gives at best conflicting definitions. We follow the sources. E Eng 03:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abebe with daughter at the 1964 Olympics

I think the caption is an incorrect translation the original from Japanese website. Source caption reads: 選手村でのアベベ親子選手村でくつろぐアベベ親子。家族思いでも有名だった。Google translates this as: "Abebe parent and child in the athlete village Abebe parents child relaxing at the athletes village. It was famous even for my family thought." Are you ok with me changing the captions in the image and article to "child" until i can find definitive proof of sex? — አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, please proceed. No need for me to make a fuss over this. I agree that "child" is a prudent wording for now, as I am not entirely convinced from the photo that this child is a girl. I am impressed by your diligent research. Best wishes. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Thanks for asking – and for the formatting above. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hertz1888 Could I solicit you to do a thorough c/e or maybe even a peer-review of this article. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look and see what grooming I can do. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Hertz, looks and fashion are so overrated! E Eng 02:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention breeding. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hertz1888:, I am considering skipping the peer-review and skipping straight to GA nomination. Any thoughts? —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Janweh64: Sorry, I am not well-informed on these matters. Perhaps @EEng:, who is more knowledgeable, can advise. I think the large number of red links may raise objections, but am not sure of that. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick glance I think it's ready for GA, so I wouldn't bother with the peer review. However, the GA process is very backed up and I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. Good work on the article! E Eng 06:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eng: Any problems with double listing? I will off course delist once one or the other gets going? —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't leave both open; choose one or the other. Personally I'd just go for GA. But again, I think I listed something for GA a year ago and I'm still waiting. Of course, I'm not doing any GA reviews, so I guess I'm part of the problem. E Eng 21:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hahahaha, will do. And Hertz1888, sorry about all the pings and thank you for lending me your talk page. Exits stage left. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing a revision

Hi,

I see that you undid my revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Twilight&diff=prev&oldid=715873033

I guess it wasn't clear to me what the sentence means, perhaps clarification is needed?

"The dimmest stars ever visible to the naked eye become visible..." If they are ever visble, how can they then become visible? I guess it also doesn't make sense if they are never visible and they become visible.Jray310 (talk) 03:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jray310: Greetings, James. I can understand your confusion. The sentence was open to misinterpretation. I've revised it here, aiming for lack of ambiguity. I hope you like the outcome. Please comment. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Hertz, pings don't work unless they're made in the same post in which your four tildes appears. Here, I'll do a free one for you now: @Jray310:. E Eng 06:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

(Thanks for pinging me @EEng: --Jray310 (talk) 07:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks Hertz, that's better. My only suggestion on your revision is to change to approximately the sixth magnitude--Jray310 (talk) 07:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC). I have changed that now, see here: Special:Diff/765757637. --Jray310 (talk) 07:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, guys. The teamwork is wonderful! Hertz1888 (talk) 04:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should notify the media! E Eng 04:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Balfour Declaration

Hi Hertz, would you be interested in helping at Wikipedia:Peer review/Balfour Declaration/archive1? I have been working to bring it to FA status, and believe it is getting close. You have contributed greatly to the article over the last decade (you've made 180 edits to it, almost five times the amount of the next most frequent editor). So I was wondering if you'd like to join the effort, to ensure the article is as well written and balanced as possible.

Thanks, Oncenawhile (talk) 09:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Public Garden (Boston)

Thanks for your continued proofreading and copy editing of Public_Garden_(Boston)! I'm hoping to continue making improvements there, and your continued help would be greatly appreciated! -- Nemilar (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A favor?

Good to see you around now and then. Question (and pardon me if I ought to know the answer): Have you done either GA or DYK reviews? E Eng 19:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That damn spellchecker..

I get the strangest "suggestions" w.r.t local names....and, as you can see, I don't always discover it....Thanks for fixing it! Huldra (talk) 23:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: Those sugggestions can sometimes be hilarious. In this case all it did was suggest that the Roman emperor harbored such a population, which made no sense. We may be better off without our tools. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colley

Samantha Colley's age on Wikipedia page keeps being changed to a much older - incorrect - age. How can this be stopped? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickPatrickPatrick (talk • contribs) 13:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With good, solid, reliable sourcing. You say the older date is incorrect, but you do not say how you know that. If sources differ, both dates could be given, with a footnote mentioning the disparity. It might be better, however, to open a discussion on the article's talk page, inviting other editors to help resolve the issue. Hertz1888 (talk) 14:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Silly mistake in History of Israel

Hi. There's a mistake in the second paragraph of lead. It says "...but was predominantly Jewish from roughly 1,000 years before the modern era until the 3rd century of the modern era." when it should say "...but was predominantly Jewish from roughly 1,000 years before the common era until the 3rd century of the common era."

The common era is for the years after AD 1, while the modern era refers to the period starting in the 16th century (after the common era). Could you please fix it? Thanks--181.229.95.7 (talk) 16:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3RR template

That's strange, I've never spoken like that, been corrected by an English teacher for that, or write like that. What neck of the woods are you from? ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 13:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of education has demonstrably deteriorated over the years. It doesn't surprise me if some of the finer points of grammar have fallen by the wayside. Not sure where I learned this one; possibly in my native NYC, more likely later. I appreciate "you" writing to me. Hertz1888 (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, interesting. Not a convention in Hampshire at least! ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 15:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help me understand your message?

I opened Wikipedia today and found a message from you addressed to "User talk:67.41.241.126". The title of the message appears to be "January 2012", and is basically a scolding for having changed somebody's entry on a Talk page. While I do make occasional changes to Wikipedia encyclopedia pages, about 99% of them are very basic, eg obvious spelling or comma corrections, or the occasional change of several words in order to make a sentence comprehensible, and only changes to an encyclopedia page.

I do read the Talk pages occasionally, but those discussions are about content, and because I go to Wikipedia seeking information, I don't know enough about the content to have anything useful to say. I agree that it would be rude to "correct" somebody's Talk entry and I wouldn't do that intentionally, especially on a topic I know nothing about (Talk:Second Temple).

I'm hoping you can help me understand a couple things about this message? ·Why do you suppose a message from January 2012 showed up today, 9/2/2017? Did I randomly get assigned 67.41.241.126 by my ISP today, maybe? ·Other than write to you, is there something I should do to clarify any misunderstanding?

I'm not very knowledgeable about this, beyond making my occasional basic contributions, but I value Wikipedia as a resource very much, and I started providing minor edits because I feel a responsibility to contribute, at the level I'm able to. Kkved (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kkved: Sorry, I can't help you understand this. I have no idea how it happened, what it means (if anything), or what to do about it, other than to disregard it. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) What it means is that more than five and a half years ago, somebody who uses Centurylink or Qwest made a bad edit while not logged in. Hertz1888 left a warning note on the talk page associated with the IP address used by that editor. When you logged in, Kkved, your internet service provider seems to have assigned you that same IP address, so it looked like the message was left for you. Since you didn't make the bad edit in January 2012, the message wasn't intended for you and you can ignore it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for responding. I'm pretty good at doing nothing, so I'll go with my strength here. Kkved (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn

Hello Mr. Hertz, Thanks for the thanks in Dawn, however, my edit didn't last long. For some reason some folks just can't get the meaning, even though they are aware of Asto,Nautical, and Civil. My edit lasted only a little while. I tried to explain it to Dbfirs (who changed back) in the talk page. I then went in the article, and reworded it to mention 'first light', but not limit it to first light. Please let me know if you are still OK with it. Thanks→ Pocketthis (talk) 01:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks clear enough to me, I wouldn't change a word. Not an easy topic to describe; one has to be totally unambiguous without being overly wordy. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our friend on the talk page is driving me nuts..lol. I keep tweaking the description trying to achieve consensus. It is so simple right now, that my joke about a caveman being able to understand it, is probably true. The description we have been living with for a year or so was awful, and appeared to be worded in a confusing and technically unsure manner on purpose. It was truly ridiculous. It is actually such a simple thing, but there are those who'd rather confuse than to educate. In my opinion, all science articles should start out with the simplest of explanations, and as the reader continues down the page, it can get more technically advanced for those with the desire and the brain capacity to absorb it. See you in the threads.→ Pocketthis (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we seem to be in consensus now, and the truth is, all the bickering there has resulted in my opinion, in the best opener to date for that article. Now we will see how long that it lasts. Thanks.→ Pocketthis (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

The first versions of the Clarence page have a lot more good detail and plot description, which should be added back. Thanks for pointing me to those in order to check if you had worked on the page early on, and please, jump in (so to speak). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flatbush, Brooklyn

One thing I have not thought about is whether the sources the problem editor is adding to the same ridiculous edit are actually decent sources (even if not for claims about The Most Important Center Of Learning In World History). Possibly worth a look. --[[User:|JBL]] (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Joel B. Lewis: I am not in a position to judge that, especially as not all four sources are available on line. My previous examinations of the sources that are turned up no basis for the grandiose claims and value judgments. Without those, the remaining material might be sufficiently innocuous to remain. I do think it is long past due for Mr. B to be censured for personal attacks. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on Revisionist Zionism article

Hello, why is it NPOV to list the acts committed by Jewish groups who wanted independence from the UK as 'terrorism'? There are a number of scholarly books that use the term, and the actions of the various groups involved clearly meet the definition of the word terrorism. Please reply on my page, thank you!--Moosh88 (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done Hertz1888 (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]