User talk:Hertz1888/Archive 1

Boston Marathon

Glad to see your contributions to Boston Marathon!--Pjmorse 16:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Marathon

Regarding my deletion of links: course map and elevation information was already available on the official site. I don't see a need to link to it multiple times. --MisterHand 14:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marathon

Thanks for the heads up on the link in the Marathon article. I've removed it once more. -- MisterHand 14:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old City area

Please see Talk:Jerusalem#Area of the Old City. -- tariqabjotu 15:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bostachusetts' Sailors and Soldiers Monument

Hi Hertz1888. Your Eminence, I think you're right "promontory" might be a stretch (though you can sled down the hill). I was quoting a description of Flag Staff Hill in a 1940s publication. However eminence doesn't seem right either, in Catholic Boston the first thought might be a cardinal or bishop. Of the two dictionaries I checked one had no geographical use for eminence, the other had it as a tertiary use. I'm running the word rise up the flag pole. What do you think? Thanks. Jim CApitol3 13:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jim. I think rise is perfect - eminently so - and see no need to look further. Thanks for noticing & caring, and thanks for the honorific. That's one I've never been called before. May all your efforts be happily monumental. Hertz1888 14:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Thanks for all your work in developing the article - from the ground up, as it were. Hertz1888 15:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hertz1888. Thanks, my pleasure. I ride by the monument on my bike frequently, it finally occured to me to do a little reearch! Jim CApitol3 16:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

six day war

Thank you== Thank you for your help on East Jerusalem article. Amoruso 16:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to oblige. I appreciate your note! Hertz1888 17:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old City

Thanks, and it's fixed. Though to point out in case you don't know, you can fix any image yourself, and just upload a new file and replace the old one, and it still keeps the old image in the file history. Epson291 21:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boston building coordinates

Hi, yes as you guessed I did get my coordinates from Google Earth, basically trying to center on the top of the building. I have no problem if you put in a more accurate coordinate. Cheers Hardnfast 10:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

East Jerusalem

Hertz, Believe it or not, that assertions of a devoutly partisan blog are not regarded by WP policy as proof of an organisation's position. The blog also calls Amnesty International anti-Israeli, but I doubt that would be accepted on their page, in fact it would probably be regarded as vandalism. A group that calls for "a just and lasting peace for Palestinians and Israelis"( see [1]) cannot be called anti-Israeli.Nwe 15:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hertz: Regarding Amaliq's statement that no other state recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel - not so, as several countries did embassies in Jerusalem — Costa Rica and El Salvador. And The United States Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act in 1995, stating that "Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel; and the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999. Official U.S. documents and web sites refer to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. But the embassy itself still has not moved pending the agreement of the President. On the otherhand, when you refer to Palestinian Arabs, this is also somewhat contentious, as the Plaestinain population also consists of Greek Orthodox and Armenians, among other groups, who are not Arab, along with Circasions and Druze. So, I would suggest that the addition of Arab, as in Palestinain Arabs, would not be totally acceptable. But, as I first wrote, given that there are states that have embassies in Jerusalem, I would agree with you that the phrase regarding no other state recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is a somewhat biased statement, and wrong - therefore should not be part of the WP page.StevenBirnam 15:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian quarter

That was sweet of you to drop me a note. I will try to help out with the main Armenian quarter article when I get a chance.--Gilabrand 12:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arlington History

I solved the problem by adding references, thereby allowing the unreferenced template to be removed from the section. Neitherday 16:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1947–1948 Civil War in Palestine

Thank you for your corrections. Little but pertinent.
Regards, Alithien 18:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The skyline of Singapore

Hello,

I saw your comment on the history page, thank you very much! I hope the image gets nominated in Wikimedia Commons.

Someformofhuman 16:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TV/FM DX and FM Stereo

Thanks! I was unaware of the spelling convention policy, and fixed the spellings on both articles back to their original English conventions. Mattdp 21:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoonerism

The spoonerism of "popcorn" is "cop porn." My Groening-esque comment about a show on the Fox network called "[Officer] Gil's Gone Wild" is a play on words of the popular video series, implying that the show consists of pornography involving police officers, which could also be called "cop porn." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.126.64.197 (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is (& it is good of you to provide the explanation), this one seems obscure and of limited interest compared to some of the more "classic" examples. A good joke works without having to explain it at length to the listener. My preference is to see the list kept short by limiting it to truly notable entries. I look forward to reading about Groening. Hertz1888 15:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If one understands the concept of a spoonerism, it is no more difficult to apply it to the word "popcorn" than it is with "butterfly." The only joke I didn't expect everyone to understand was the edit summary, which is hardly critical for a three-word edit. (Matt Groening is the creator of The Simpsons, which has made a running joke out of bashing the very network on which it airs.) Notability is an acceptable rationale for excluding my example, but irrelevant nonsense it is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.126.64.197 (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's simply juvenile! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.126.64.197 (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"...irrelevant nonsense it is not." Agreed. Hertz1888 18:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newton

Thanks for your recent edits to Newton, Massachusetts. Perhaps you can look at People from Newton, Massachusetts which was recently spun off from the main Newton article. Edits which were previously deleted on notability issues several times in the main article have reappeared in the the spinoff article. clariosophic 11:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some edits to the page, including posting (as hidden text) a notice regarding standards for inclusion. However, this notice will not be visible to all editors unless it is copied to every section. You may wish to include a request to keep the list alphabetical. As for individual entries, having three (!) listings for R. M. Jarrell (and three more on the Waban page) seems especially egregious. In general, I would suspect the "red names" (with non-links) first for non-notability, per the posted criteria. Hertz1888 04:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was not vandalism, its true. Ill do one more edit if you think thats vandalism then I wont edit no more :-) okeeeej deal? see the edit first please.cyrus111 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

September, 2007

Thank you for making a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators generally only block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 21:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and by the way, users are supposed to be warned on their user talk page. With

[Examples removed lest they be mistaken for real citations]

Thanks, if you have any more questions just ask. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 21:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, JetLover, and thanks for the crash course. I went to the user's talk page, intending to leave a warning, only to find present an "only warning" (from 11 Sept.) saying "if you vandalize again you will be blocked". It seemed sufficient. I can leave a final warning if that's the proper procedure. Please let me know either way. Cheers du jour, Hertz1888 21:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A last warning is only effective if it has been placed in the last 24 hours.

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		But for your efforts! Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AM/FM versus AM and FM

Just curious: What's the difference between the two? - Theaveng 12:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AM/FM often indicates facilities that are co-owned, co-sited or simulcast. I thought it best to spell out what I took to be your intended meaning. And then, there's Wp:mos#Slashes.

I want to thank you for your extensive knowledge, dedication and fortitude (lately especially the latter) in developing this article. When I can, I clarify or smooth a bit. I hope you find it helpful. Hertz1888 13:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes absolutely. Thanks for your corrections. - Theaveng 15:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Wonderful Life and Harry Bailey

Copyedit from my page: "Greetings, Bill Zuk. Thanks for your many contributions to the "Wonderful Life" article. As further information checking, I just watched the relevent portion of the film. The narrator remarks that Harry Bailey shot down 15 planes, two of them about to crash into a transport full of soldiers. At that moment we are given the briefest glimpse of a convoy of ships. From this it seems clear that the troop transport was a ship, or possibly ships in the plural, and not a plane. Cheers, Hertz1888 22:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

Hello Hertz, thanks for writing, This has cleared up a point for me as I had a copy of the original script when I first wrote the plot summary and when George on page 200 refers to his brother saving all the men on a transport, it did not originally indicate the type of transport. Since Harry was a pilot, I had made the leap of intuition that he would have been saving a transport aircraft, which is commonly referred to as a "transport." Many fighter pilots would have been tasked to act as escorts for other aircraft and it possible and highly likely that a pilot would save a transport by shooting down attacking aircraft, although possibly bombing an enemy ship could have been possible. In wartime, it was more common to refer to "troop ships" as the type that carried soldiers into battle and "transport ships" as mainly cargo vessels. Only when the reference note recently appeared in the "It's a Wonderful LIfe" article did I go back to the script and began to track back any mention of Harry Bailey in the war and at that point I came across a description of the newspaper that Uncle Billy was carrying when he inadvertedly slips the Building and Loan deposit into it. The newspaper is described in a production note as featuring a photograph of the "destroyer" that Harry Bailey had saved. This, of course, does not match the description of a "transport" but it is clear that a ship was saved, not an aircraft. Being a pilot, I obviously have a particular mindset when I hear the word "transport" and it didn't take much for me to convince myself that Harry had saved an aircraft rather than a ship. C'est la vie, now at least, we know for certain. FWIW Bzuk 03:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Boston Vandalism

Thought you should know that it seems User:Quentin000 has violated the three-revert rule. You seem a more experienced wiki user than I, and are welcome to follow-up as you see fit. Take care! Aepoutre 16:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Aepoutre, and thank you for coming to the rescue. I could see the edit was unpopular, and gave several reasons why I thought it ill-advised, but User:Quentin000 kept putting it back anyway. I was reluctant to call it vandalism. Wiki policies (at WP:DE) urge assuming good faith initially, then if the problem continues to try for dialogue. If that is rejected, the "disruptive editor" label may apply. As for the three-revert rule, it generally means three in one day, but there is some flexibility. There are certainly more than three reverts (probably about 6) over the past 4 days. If the problem recurs, let us be in touch. Perhaps your warning will suffice and it won't be necessary to do anything further. We shall see. Very best, Hertz1888 18:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that Quentin000's edits to the Boston article were removed as vandalism. As a resident of the area, I know personally that there is quite a lot of discussion in the media and amongst Bostonians about whether or not Boston is a world-class city or not. Most recently, this occurred in the context of whether bars should be allowed to stay open later than 2 a.m., the current last call time. Whether or not this needs to be in the article is a fair question, and I think the editor at issue could have handled the reversions better (though he seems to be a new editor FWIW). But a BBC article was cited and I know that the world-class city issue is a real one here. I don't feel strongly about it one way or the other, and I don't feel strongly enough about it to track down citations, but I wanted to put it out there if the issue continues with Quentin000. Friejose 18:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your point of view on this, Friejose. Who could object to a bit of additional boastfulness when Boston already is termed the "hub of the solar system" (or of the entire universe)? If the claim to "world class" status hinges on late bar hours (how amazing), then I suppose they could object. At least, "world-class" is a familiar term. My main objection to the contested edit was that it employed the unfamiliar "gamma world" concept in the initial lines. The reader should not immediately be diverted into a footnote or external link upon beginning to read the introduction. I don't know whether a "global" city outranks a "world class" one, either, do you? If there is a compelling need to use any of these labels, and I'm not convinced there is, they can go further down the page, where there is room for explanations. Thanks again for your "take" on this situation. Very best, Hertz1888 19:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

debate?

...about the Arab-Israeli conflict! You said you wanted a debate about my part (that you removed). I've started a debate on the debatepage of that article.--Ezzex 20:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vinxx

I see you complained on his talk page User talk:Vinxx aswell, are you an administrator? If you are could you ban him please, he is constantly removing Hizbollah from targets of the war on terrorism and putting Israel instead for some reason. I have complained many times but he does nothing else than keep doing it for some reason. The Honorable Kermanshahi 16:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not an administrator, but I am familiar with how to apply for a block (at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism). I have put a final warning on Vinxx's talk page and reverted more of the recent damage. Blocking must be requested while the final warning remains recent, and while the vandal is currently active. I will be watching for that. Thanks for your msg. and any help you can render. Hertz1888 19:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. let's hope he stops now. The Honorable Kermanshahi 09:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1947-1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine

Thank you for your work to "protect" that page ! Ceedjee (talk) 08:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the spelling & grammar. I am not very good in English. Ceedjee (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do extremely well, considering that. I am glad to help where I can. Thanks for your note here. I hope we will work together again. Most of all, I would like to thank you for your vigilent and valient efforts as a warrior for truth and objectivity. All the best, Hertz1888 (talk) 20:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you !

I think I can say the same concerning your work here !

Ceedjee (talk) 08:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Wonderful Life

Whoa, did I say Harry professed his love for Mary? How embarrassing. :-D That would make for an interesting, if not exactly heartwarming, version. –TashTish (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it, though. Much too convoluted. As for embarrassment, I doubt that many readers noticed what was up for only 11 minutes. All things considered, I thought you did a splendid re-writing job. Nice hearing from you. Hertz1888 (talk)

Peoples vs. races

Hi Hertz,

Even if you want to put Peoples instead of Race it's OK. However let me assert wikipedia is accessed by different age-groups. Peoples is a correct word for defining a group of people who are culturally or ethnically different/divided. Average reader to an reader poor in english can sometimes be misled with certain usage of word. So why not simplify it further.

What do you think.

Regards, AB (talk) 08:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abhowmick, I was going by the strict definition of "race" as genetic, vs. "people" as a cultural or ethnic grouping (as you say). I'm not sure what your question to me is. Am curious as to how you would "simplify it further". Regards to you. Hertz1888 (talk) 10:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Well what I was trying to say is people who might be poor in English, like an example an average or person who is not that great in English will say " Hey isn't people a plural of many person. Then what is peoples." However what many people wont realise initially that peoples can refer to groups of people who are ethnically divided. Well it was just a suggestion. You may ignore it I have no reservations but just thought few readers in South Asia, Africa and some European countries might think peoples is a wrong word. We had been learning and understanding English for a long time what looks to be simple and easy for us, may not be that easy to comprehend for others. We need to use certain thigns in more elaborate or in lay man terms. But anyways a great article, I am going through it to find if any updation in respect to historical facts (dates) can be done.

Thanks and Regards, AB (talk) 07:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: American Revolutionary War

If this page is currently protected, as the template says, why are we still reverting vandalism by anonymous users? Clearly, something is amiss. When was the page protection template put in place, because I do not see it in the article history? I am, to say the least, a little confused. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for flagging this. The semi-protection was applied a month ago, on Nov. 1-2. It took a while to find it in the history. It was due to expire on Dec. 1-2, and evidently has, but inexplicably the notice has not yet been removed. If heavy vandalism resumes, reinstitution of the block would be in order. Very best, Hertz1888 22:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that makes perfect sense. Isn't it standard practice for a bot to remove the template when protection has expired? Regardless, it did not happen this time. Clearly, protection has expired. I'll see how things develop over the next 48 hours before requesting protection again. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several other Revol. War-related articles were heavily targeted by IP vandalism until semi-protected (at my request); apparently they are school assignments. We are dealing, probably, with 10-12 year olds, some of them unspeakably foul-mouthed. It's such a relief to stem the tide. Please let me know if I can help in any way. Cheers to you. Hertz1888 23:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, sir. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What timezone are you in?

It's 04:25 here in London! Talk about being addicted to Wiki!! Chesdovi (talk) 04:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Five time zones west of you, in New England, where it's "only" 23:30. It is an addiction, isn't it. I suppose you are either up very late or up very early; either way proves your point. All the best, Hertz1888 04:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our friend

Hi, I'm replying here. If you'd rather continue the discussion on one page, let me know. I think the best way to go with this is ANI, since he's clearly returning to the exact same misconduct after a block. Let me do that now and get back to you on how you can support the sockpuppetry case. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ANI is here if you'd like to add anything. If you want to comment on the sockpuppetry, you can do that here. That page also has a list of other suspected related sockpuppets. So far, after this last block, he's been rather clever by only making edits to articles with mixed era styles. You're allowed to change those to make them internally consistent, so long as you don't change 15 BCEs to match one BC. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's A Wonderful Life

Hi, Just wanted to give you a little advice. When you edited It's A Wonderful Life, you just inserted some commas, next time please put this as a minor edit. This can save me and other recent changes patroler's time. Thank you very much for you contributions though. Warrior4321 04:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:South Station tower

Thank you, Hertz1888! I forgot to put in the URL addresses after formatting the cite web templates, and I probably would not have gone back to fix them if you hadn't notified me. As for the groundbreaking date, I just assumed that it wasn't going to take place in the next 4 days, so I went ahead and changed it to 2008. I haven't seen any sources stating that it has been officially postponed, but I guess that can be assumed from construction not beginning on schedule in 2007. Cheers, Rai-me 01:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date warriors

Hi, Hertz. Nice catch on Second Temple and Solomon's Temple. I saw you left a message on the IP's talk page. If you don't mind a friendly word of advice, it's probably not worth the trouble. Usually, these miscreants show up as IPs, make one or two edits, and are never heard from again. I tend to revert without comment on their talk pages unless they become persistent, in which case, I take it to WP:ANI. If there's any way I can help further, holler. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Brighton, Mass

== Brighton, Mass. ==

"for similar incidents consider using Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. This user isn't the best example... but for edit wars you can usually use that page."

Thanks! You are welcome to "butt in" any time. You are boosting me on the learning curve. I am aware of the 3RR, but in this case didn't think it applied. Seven times in a month or so is, after all, a lot less intense than thrice in 24 hours. I'll keep the /3RR board in mind for future situations. Cheers to you. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, just thought I'd help out. You're right, in this case it isn't exactly the ideal solution; however, the editor did violate 3RR at least once. In situations like that you can report them there. Cheers, and if there's anything else you'd like help with feel free to let me know! Master of Puppets ^Care to share? 02:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request to delete a username

I am afraid the MediaWiki software does not allow a user account to be deleted; the account in question has been blocked and will never be permitted to be used to edit Wikipedia, which is the most that can resonably be done. (Note that if the account were renamed to something less offensive, another user could have re-created the account under the old name.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

---

Did you know Roland Rat lived beneath King's Cross railway station and had a girlfriend called Glenis the Guinea Pig? If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. Chesdovi (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arab citizens of Israel

Please read articles before you ridiculously amend them. The infobox in this article is about Arabs, not about Arab citizens of Israel. There are, of course, far more than 1.4 million Arabs. And the image which you and Chesdovi have substituted is wholly inappropriate for this box. RolandR (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response given at User talk:RolandR#Arab citizens of Israel. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Westen Wall Page

Someone has been using my computer to make changes to the Western Wall Page. The changes were not done or authorised by myself - infact I have no idea what changes were made. I have my suscpisions about who did it. Please do not accept any further submissions from this IP unless I am logged in.

Regards,

Kelly97 (talk) 09:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please get in touch with me re this?

Kelly97 (talk) 07:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how I can be helpful to you, as I don't understand what it is you are requesting. Could you be more specific? Is this about the "Write to God" link, repeatedly inserted on the W.W. page? If so, it has not reappeared there since 3 January. Said link is non-encyclopedic, a commercial promotion such as are expressly forbidden on Wikipedia. You can access a list of all anonymous contributions from the IP address in question (apparently yours) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/212.199.134.130 Hertz1888 (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orders of magnitude

If the commas were not typos, than can you settle on one standard throughout the article? Commas and periods are used interchangeably and it's very confusing. I don't care which is used, as long as it's consistent. X3210 (talk) 05:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you e-mail me ?

Tnx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeq (talk • contribs) 06:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bunker Hill

Well, can't argue with that. Page protected for 3 months. We'll see what happens then. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funny mistake

I work in technical support / customer service for an IT company, so 'custom' became 'customer'... hehe. Thanks for correcting it! --D. Breslauer (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

86.128.8.208

I'd just like to point out that the IP address 86.128.8.208 made their last malicious redirect one minute before their only warning. Not that it's really a big deal -- the odds are practically 100% that the block will expire before anyone with good intentions wants to edit from that IP address -- but it's the sort of thing that IMO should be checked before a report to WP:AIV. -- Why Not A Duck 20:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I lack your patience with blatant vandals such as this. Judging from the momentum I saw, this was a spree in progress. If it quacks like a duck, and all that. But thanks for your advice; noted. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for corrects on boston marathon

Thanks for catching those two mistakes I made! - Davandron | Talk 13:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Western Wall

Why the year is mentioned as "19 BCE" instead of "19 BC"? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The BCE/CE system is the one that has been established for that article. For more background on the Wiki policies governing choice of era dating, you might look here. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Ok, thanks for the clarification. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that isn't an explanation. OTOLEMUR - you are correct, Hertz is wrong. It is an academically dishonest way to indicate the year. A story on the Western Wall LOGICALLY should have BC/AD.Bilcarter (talk) 07:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is NOT censored

Please stop. Wikipedia is not censored. Any further changes which have the effect of censoring an article, such as you did to Spoonerism, will be regarded as vandalism. If you continue in this manner, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Joshuarooney2008 (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WHAV

Thank you for the formatting help! I am new at creating Wikipedia pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcoco01830 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

marathon LEAD

Thanks for cleaning up those sentences I wrote. Looks much better now. David D. (Talk) 19:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Jerusalem

Sources for Roman-Persian wars section: 1- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(614) 2-http://www.wzo.org.il/en/resources/view.asp?id=222

How can I add these to that page? Shaahin (talk) 23:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first, considered a wikilink, is already included in the section heading. A Timeline of Jerusalem, already cited at the top of the History section, could be considered incorporated by inference. It would be helpful if you could provide citations (from "reliable sources") for specific statements in the new section. I would be happy to assist you with adding them in with proper formatting. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With your added references the new section looks "kosher". I removed the "unreferenced" header, and also the second of the three citations. That one is already part of the text. Also, to the best of my knowledge, a wikilink (internal link) is not considered of the same caliber as an external, reliable source. Thanks for contributing to the article. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the guides, your help is appreciated! Shaahin (talk) 00:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of calendar

You may want to add your comments here--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appelbaum

True, two individuals. Actually speaking we should have one article with a title relating to the bombing, with a few words on each person's background. For some additional background, see WP:Requests for checkuser/Case/Evidence-based. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble seeing the relevance of the linked article, but thanks anyway for the response. I'm sure even otherwise busy editors can come up with such a single article within several days' time. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a shot in a while, no deadlinere. Sorry, the link is because these articles are part of a set built up and extensively maintained by that sockfarm. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Palestinian territories. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revisionist Zionism

Please sign your name as to your comment. Also, where have you been all this time? I have not had the benefit of your view. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV - 67.183.156.84

Please respond to my query at WP:AIV. I sense that challenging the IP for sources per WP:V would be far more productive than accusing them of vandalism straight off the bat. --  Netsnipe  ►  04:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops on ref

...and thanks!:) Prashanthns (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Thanks for your efforts, too. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem

Hi could you please look at my question there? Mallerd (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ak47225

This user was already indefinitely blocked half an hour before you gave those warnings. 209.244.31.53 (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict

Hi. I just wanted to thank you for correcting the formatting of Media coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict. That must have been very tedious, so I will try much harder in the future to adhere to references-after-punctuation. I do have a disagreement, though, about one of the changes; there was a reference immediately after the direct quote "the Arab and European media..." which you moved to the end of the sentence, however, WP:CITE indicates that a reference should appear immediately after the direct quote. I have changed that one item, back. If you think I'm misinterpreting WP:CITE, then feel free to get back to me. ← Michael Safyan^(talk) 14:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings to you, and thanks for your considerate note. I don't see where I made such a change, but that's okay. What matters is that you moved the citation to the correct position, as would appear; I don't think you are misinterpreting the rules. Thank you for all your work in constructing & developing the article, including pulling in abundant citations. I am rather dazzled by your proficiency & speed in doing so. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation Help

Many thanks for the punctuation correction on the Ruth Posselt reference. I'm going to check some of my other edits, I think I may have done the same thing elsewhere. Much appreciated.[[Wrightjack (talk) 20:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)]][reply]

You are not alone. I see this problem all too frequently, and wish the formatting rules were displayed more prominently and hence better known. Thanks for your note! Very best, Hertz1888 (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:List of tallest buildings in Boston

Hello, Hertz1888. I am sorry for this very late reply; I have been busy in real life, so my editing time has been very limited recently. While that news would affect the rankings, I think it would be best to leave Trans National Place at its listed height of 1,175 ft / 358 m, at least for now, in the Boston tallest building list; the developer has not released a new height, and the Emporis and SkyscraperPage references both still list the height of 1,000 feet or greater. However, the Trans National Place article should certainly be modified to state that a height decrease, while not yet official, is extremely likely. I will do that now. Surprisingly, though, FAA rulings are not always final; the FAA stated that Nashville's Signature Tower was too tall, but local airport controllers and politicians fought to preserve its 1,000 ft+ height and seem to have been ultimately sucessful; it is scheduled to break ground this year with no height decrease. Let us hope this is the case with TNP :) You may be interested in contacting User:Pressuredrop16; he/she is a Tufts student who made a comprehensive report of the engineering aspects of the tower, and knows a great deal about the building's proposed contruction schedule (although given the recent news, this will almost certainly be delayed...) Cheers, Rai•me 01:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

metapuppetry

Given that your edit on Jerusalem occured just after 3 edits by Crum375, do you mind explaining how this does not constitute metapuppetry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colourinthemeaning (talk • contribs) 13:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know what that is, but this sounds like a false accusation. I have no connection with Crum375. Personal attacks are no substitute for collaborative editing via the discussion page. Hertz1888 (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction?

I'm not sure how the citations could contradict this; you just made the caption more precise. -- tariqabjotu 20:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All three citations use the specific term "third-holiest". It seems to me that saying "one of the three" instead is taking liberties, inaccurate and misleading. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you're so intent upon defending the idea that Jerusalem is the third holiest. Saying that it is one of the three holiest is certainly not inaccurate. I could find alternate citations, but there's so much else to do. The cited references don't contradict "one of the three holiest," so why argue over this? Please explain a bit. Thanks, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 02:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is what the references say (see above), so presumably the ranking is significant. That is the meaning you are omitting (and suppressing). Even if it isn't technically inconsistent, your edit misrepresents. I do not see why you would not want to comply with the sources' wording (upon which they all agree). Cheers, Hertz1888 (talk) 03:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Empire State Editing

How was that vandalism? I posted a link to a first-hand account of the suicide described in text. Actually, sadly, I got the wrong link -- I posted a link to a page one-removed from the actual account. I went back to change it, when I saw your note. Here is the correct link:

http://www.coedmagazine.com/sex/Guys-Room/8870

Read the story -- it's compelling, and it's the back-story of the actual suicide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.149.201.129 (talk) 09:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanking & Appologizing

It is true that English is not my first language, but because of that I have access to information pprinted in other languages (especcially Hebrew) in order to contribute them to the Wikipedia. In fact I had used a spell checker before starting the article, but since it was agressively revised, I stoped using it, seeing that not this is the problem. I appriciate when spelling or grammaris corrected, but not when the content is falsified from how the facts actually occured as they are given in trustworthy sources. I have clarified that in my User page, when I wrote that "sometimes they are doing a good job", but as you see revising my original introduction have leaded to so much misunderstanding and corrupted the readability of the article.

HagiMalachi (talk) 14:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]