User talk:Hertz1888/Archive 2

Jerusalem FAR
Jerusalem has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 21:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Immigration and the solar cycle
Getting rid of the entire posting seems like overkill, as I have posted to the newsgroups and one of the data chart services a request to line the charts up. The article segment is hardly perfect, but it would do no harm to keep it for a fortnight as other people may come along with actual research. There may be plenty of research on this, but none of it NZ related. Not all web search engines can necessarily find the proper PDF research articles.

I am a broadcasting consultant by trade, with some specialization in the Shortwave frequency region. I know about solar flux issues more than most people.

My website is: http://HireMe.geek.nz/

Probably there is better tracking of net migration into the US from Latin America based on the same forcing functions ... but NZ has a much clearer border (millions of km of unfriendly ocean) than the US does -- allowing for a more perfect correlation (of Migration vs Peak Solar Flux) if there is one.

I have not been able to line up a graph of NZ Net Migration to Solar Flux yet ... that may take a while to do. Such a chart made by me would probably be more of an artistic line up vs a spreadsheet correlation exercise (something I am even less skilled at, as I am not a professional statistician). On top of that, I don't have any good research contact points at NZ Immigration!

I would imagine that a really bad case of extreme solar flux could add several NZs to the US population via creating vast numbers of environmental refugees. It just has not happened yet... Eyreland (talk) 08:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Regardless of your evidently excellent qualifications, WP insists on reliable sourcing and verifiability. As the policies previously cited regarding not publishing one's original research or speculation here seem pretty clear (at least in my view), I cannot encourage you to restore the material.  However, I am not the ultimate authority on the rules, nor their ultimate enforcer.  If you choose to put back a succinct version, making sure to clearly state its hypothetical nature, it might survive for a while, subject to challenge at any time.  Discussions of how to improve an article properly belong on its talk page. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Camera on
Hi Hertz1888, I just wanted to clarify something since, I realize now, my edit summary was not clear. I actually did not cut out what I defined as the CAMERA nonsense, if you look at this edit of mine, I added info which buttressed it. What I meant was that I was cutting it from that section and moving it to development. The CAMERA data has been left intact, qualified, and moved down. Best, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your letting me know. I am pleased to see it is only moved, not dumped as it had originally appeared to be. I have found their published work to be carefully carried out and based on the pursuit of accuracy.  Thank you for writing to me to clarify the editing process.  Cheers, Hertz1888 (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Jerus archive
Yes, I had read the archive. I wrote some of those comments before I perused the whole thing, which I have dipped in and out of in the past month or so. I think people are being pretty hard on me today. Comments made by some others have been as harsh or harsher and elicited no comments from anyone else except maybe our innocnet newcomer trying to suggest a change to the "Jerusalem as capital" section.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 08:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Solar cycles
Why did you remove the tag? Article does not have inline citations.

In addition, it is quite long article, and has only few references, and not even all external links work.

Lakinekaki (talk) 08:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I see 11, five old and six new. Hertz1888 (talk) 09:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Those 6 new I placed today, and few other editors dont even like those. In addition, articles should have inline citations. Lakinekaki (talk) 09:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe WP prefers footnote-type citations (properly formatted, of course), per WP:MOS. I would prefer you now leave me out of this discussion. Hertz1888 (talk) 09:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * adding a citation section of WP:CITE policy encourages inline citations. I will leave you out of this now, but had to explain my tag insert action first. Lakinekaki (talk) 09:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Inline citations - of which there are two types - that's just what those are. Is this all a silly misunderstanding of terminology?  Don't bother to explain. You can stop monitoring here now.  End of discussion. Hertz1888 (talk) 09:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

See Jerus talk, please
Hi Hertz, I was wondering why you became so very very angry, when usually you have been one of the more reasonable editors at Jerusalem of late, so I looked over my prior statement and realized that I made a mistake. Sorry - the sentence should have read, "However, I am NOT the only one" promoting NPOV for headings. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw. A serious omission, and a good argument for additional proofreading.  The statement is fixed now, but I hope you will take my concluding comments to heart nevertheless.  I disagree strongly that saying the city was divided and then reunified is pro- or anti- anybody; it's just a simple objective statement.  That's what a sizable number of voices have been asserting.  Cheers, Hertz1888 (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Spelling artefact
Sorry about the non-Americanism. I'll have to remember to switch spell-checkers when copyediting (obviously I prefer real English :) ) Verbal  chat  21:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, please. I didn't realize that was a legit. UK spelling; never came across it before. If it fits with the dominant style of the article it belongs there. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. I'm not sure now... :) Verbal   chat  21:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Invention of Radio
I do not understand the point you are making regarding Hughes. Hughes claimed that he was transmitting by means of EM waves but others described as EM induction. I do not think that it is possible to say which was actually the case. More detail is given in the 'History of Radio' but I am trying not to repeat too much of that article here. Perhaps we should just make reference to it. I am trying to give a summary of various radio claims.

Can you answer any of my questions on the Invention of Radio' talk page?

RegardsMartin Hogbin (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks greatly for your development of the table. It looks  good and is a major improvement to the article.  As for the Hughes question, perhaps I am reading too critically, but I was confused by the statement, "Whether he did so is not clear but he may have", as the "did so" follows a sentence that makes 3-5 different assertions.  This begs the question "did what?".  My best guess is that you are referring to his transmitting and receiving, but I would rather not guess, and other readers may stumble over this phrasing too.  A simple rewording making your intention clear should take care of this.  It's not a question of physics, only of explicit wording.  Cheers, Hertz1888 (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I will have a look at your questions on the article's talk page and see if there's anything I can add, but am not able to do so immediately. Hertz1888 (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

reference
The Atlas de Tel-Aviv is a complete study of the history of Jaffa and Tel-Aviv through historical maps and archives. Why was the reference "Atlas de Tel-Aviv" canceled in "Jaffa" references? How to add it in "tel-Aviv"?

Thanks for answering —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marionpolo (talk • contribs) 14:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It appears to be a blog site and commercially-oriented, both of which WP discourages. Moreover, it is not primarily in English.  Per my reading of the relevant policy, it is not appropriate content.  If you disagree, you can discuss the matter on the articles' talk pages. Hertz1888 (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

blocus
Sorry for the mistake. I don't have any dictionnary next to me right now. What do you think is better (and English) : Maybe the second is the simplest ? NB: factually they didn't besiege the city in order to take this but just prevented its supply... Ceedjee (talk) 09:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * blockade of Jerusalem
 * siege of Jerusalem
 * Ok. with interwiki, I found the translation : it is blockade
 * Ceedjee (talk) 09:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

re:
re: Western Wall, sorry! at a glance i thought they were changing BCE to BC. i'm usually very sharp sighted. regards, dvdrw 21:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Understood. Thanks for your commendable intentions! Hertz1888 (talk) 21:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Rollback
Hi Hertz1888. I just gave you the rollback feature because you seem trustworthy and use the undo feature frequently with good results. I thought you might be able to use this feature. Please read the link which explains when to use rollback and not to and let me know what you think.
 * Regards, dvdrw 22:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, thank you! That is so much easier and is bound to cut down on the drudge work considerably.  I had thought about requesting RB privileges, but never got around to it.  Very nice of you to take the initiative.  I have read the linked page & understand the do's and don'ts.  I appreciate your trust.  Very best, Hertz1888 (talk) 23:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

American Revolutionary War
Will fix the formatting mistakes straight away. Sorry for the inconvenience. Jor dan  Contribs  13:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hillel Weiss
Hillel Weiss is for the breakdown in settler/IDF relationship, the evictions etc. It caused quite a stir in Israeli society and as such worthy of detail....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Everything you add to Hebron lately seems to be "worthy of detail", as if everything was equally significant. That leads to rapid overgrowth.  Also, there may be a more appropriate article for items relating to the "settler/IDF relationship".  Hertz1888 (talk) 19:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Has wiki run out of paper??????????....That may sound flippant but it isn't meant to be. Each article has the ability to be increased until each section becomes a separate article in its own right. With that in mind the more detail the better......Nothing in the ME is straight forward, one liners only lead to POV...considering that for 99% of Hebron's history it has been a non-Jewish city the article is disproportionately weighted in favour of Jewish history...Will you cut out the Jewish history of Hebron to achieve proportionality? Somehow I don't think you will. Therefore the article needs to be expanded to achieve proportionality just on the historical side let alone for the modern Hebron, which for proportionality should again be at the rate of 99 parts Palestinian to 1 part Jewish/Israeli.....To reiterate: The alternatives are; remove most of the Jewish History of Hebron or increase the article. Me, I like to be inclusive......Even the Israeli government found that Hebron was a special case, hence the Hebron agreement....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see my reply at Talk:Hebron. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Clarification
See talk page on Hebron...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hebron clutter
Seems there's some confusion following on the creation of the new page on conflict in Hebron. Would you be averse to the idea of removing that awful clutter on the Hebron page? I've canvassed the idea of a vote at the bottom of the page. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Averse? Not at all. Going to vote. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Spoonerism comment
Thanks for adding your comment to the Spoonerism article. I'm trying to figure out what to do about that list...as far as I can tell, there was never a source for any of those examples, and it's easy to tell that most of them were made up as jokes and not actually uttered by accident as the original article claimed (although I can't really verify that without getting called out for OR), so my gut instinct is to get rid of them, but on the other hand it is good to have some examples to illustrate what the article is supposed to be about. I'm going to snoop around and see if I can find some better-documented attested examples anywhere online (so far all the pages that the article links to are not very trustworthy sources) to hopefully replace that list with...and if I don't, I might just go ahead and delete it.

Anyway, sorry for that long rant; I just wanted to say thanks for adding your comment to help keep that list under control. --Politizer (talk) 01:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Not at all. I'm glad you got in touch.  I was getting ready to contact you, in fact, with the news that I found a source we can cite that gives most of the examples on the list (some with slight differences) and says, as you've been saying, that they are "attributed to Spooner, most of them spuriously."  The published source is a book by Richard Lederer, who, as you may know, is a master exponent of all forms of wordplay.  It seems to me we can quote and cite Lederer and leave the list essentially intact.  I'd like to know if you see any problem with that.  I hope the list can be saved, and the Lederer sourcing could be the key to doing so, as "OR" will be out of the picture.  Lederer agrees with you and is very much a Reliable Source.


 * Numerous times I have reverted some really bad present day-oriented additions to the list by pointing out that they couldn't possibly be attributed to Spooner. Your edit meant we had lost that handle, hence I saw a need for the hidden message.  Thanks again for writing.  Please let me know that you have seen this reply.  Cheers, Hertz1888 (talk) 03:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that sounds great. Some of those quotes are obviously (because of differences in intonation between the quote and the "original" that it was supposedly derived from, for example) intentionally made up to be funny, but as long as it's attested in Lederer's book that someone has tried to attribute them to Spooner we can keep the list...I was just wary about making it appear as if we were claiming that they were attributed to Spooner.  Anyway, since it sounds like the source you have would both clarify this matter and allow us to keep illustrative examples, I would definitely support your putting that reference in and preserving the list--and then, of course, we could also go back to describing it as a list of "quotations attributed to Spooner" (the reason I had changed the handle before was because I wasn't sure if we could really verify that anyone had ever tried to verify them to Spooner).


 * Thanks for your message, --Politizer (talk) 05:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hebron
Hi Hertz. The article is getting a little more solid in terms of its overall history 2600 BCE down to modern times. I have several sections (Terebinth ritual, Travellers' Accounts etc.,) that could add some more to this. But as it stands we do appear to have a problem of Undue recentism (Avruch's term), notably more than half the article after 1967, and this split up awkwardly into several sections. I don't want to fiddle around with this at the moment, and were I eventually to do so, it would be in a collegiate spirit of paring it down to a very brief synthesis of events post 1979. This is one of the reasons (okay, I have a POV point on this as well) I backed Ashley's proposal to create a subpage dealing with the issue of settler-Palestinian conflict, in order to liberate this page of its heavy weightedness towards recent conflict.

I'm thinking in the long term, and would appreciate it if chaps like yourself mull the problem, without haste, to see if we can come up with some ideas about shortening the last section. In any case, in approaching big things like this, my rule is the Latin dictum, festina lent(isssim)e. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 14:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clean-up in the meantime. I'm aware that a final recension before applying for some status upgrade is a close review of all punctuation and citational forms, notes, etc., so that they all observe the same criteria. I've neglected this, culpably, being too focused on other matters. Nishidani (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your efforts too. It will certainly be festina lentissime on my part at this time, as my attention is so divided, but I'll definitely give the matter some thought asap. Hertz1888 (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A couple of months at a minimum's my sort of time-scale (hope my ticker keeps up for that long!) Nishidani (talk) 15:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Re Eight Below
I totaly agree w/ your edit re red-links. I hate those red links. My best --Lou Luigibob (talk) 18:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Re Greater Israel
yes maybe I should have left "a smaller area" but the editorialising "and more accurate" was not required...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 18:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Tiberias
It was an official military expedition, the only official expedition, as unlike the Mark Twain pilgrimage as you could get, an doesn't really make the grade....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the minor tweaks on Arab-Israeli conflict. This keyboard is superbad (yes, I'm blaming it on the keyboard). Cheers,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  23:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Restored images
Thank you for restoring the images on the article pages Great Lakes storm of 1913 and Great Blizzard of 1888. I was working on updating the infobox and image display but I received a message from an administrator that I should have discussed the changes first. I had forgotten that I had changed the images to the newer display format and they needed to be reverted as well. Thanks again. Shinerunner (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Greetings & thanks for the explanation. I was in the process of writing to you when I saw your message. I knew the disappearing of images & captions was inadvertent.  Best wishes, Hertz1888 (talk) 01:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Coordinates
Thanks for the information about the maps located under the coordinate information. I had no idea they were there. Perhaps I can find another way to help with this project. Thanks again. --markhab (talk) 03:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Marathon
I edit the Marathon article and I wrote "The first official woman marathon take place in 1982...". You revert with the reason "There were earlier women-only marathons.". I can't find any official women-only marathon before Athens 82. Can you please send me that information? Thanks Joseolgon (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You will find a good summary here, beginning where it says: "On October 28, 1973, the first all women's marathon was held in Waldniel, West Germany." There is additional material, mainly about the 1978-83 period, here. A chronology is found here. Best wishes, Hertz1888 (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Joseolgon (talk) 00:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Boston Collage
This images license is valid and this format for photographs for major cites.. see New York City, LA, London Chicago ect... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyork (talk • contribs) 21:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Please join the discussion on the Boston talk page, where there are reasons stated for not using this particular group of images. Not everyone agrees that a collage is the right choice.  Please edit collaboratively, seeking consensus for further changes. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The collage follows the standard format for big cities set up by Wikipedia. It highlights major points of interest in Boston. The other image doesn’t even show the complete skyline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.243.4.157 (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * i prefer this image over the other one. it encompasses more of boston than the backbay/pru ie; fenway, beacon hill.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonsox07 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Please leave no more messages here regarding this matter. Further discussion should be pursued on the Talk page for Boston, where a discussion is underway. Hopefully a consensus will emerge. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

My Talk page
Hello. I'm a little unsure what happened, but my Talk page is showing up that you deleted a Barnstar left there. Have I misunderstood something or did you feel the user was vandalising my page in some way? Regards, Boleyn (talk) 22:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, and dozens of others, and articles as well. An administrator agreed a block was appropriate. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Help needed - copyright violation?
I have searched the help pages in vain for guidance on this question. I suspect copyright infringement in the Team Hoyt article, where 11,000 bytes of new material appeared all at once, replacing previous content. This material is extensively detailed and complex, and looks (including the non-wiki reference formatting) like a cut and paste from elsewhere. Such an article would have taken extensive research, including conducting interviews, on the part of the originator. I reverted it once and raised questions on the contributor's talk page, at User talk:Hockeygirl10, but her only response was to reintroduce it a week later. I am unable to prove infringement, and can't very well ask outright, "is this your own work?" -- but it seems unlikely such a highly developed article would appear fully blown unless lifted from something previously published. Would I be acting properly by reverting the edit again and asking for a response to my previous concerns? How should I deal with this situation? Is experienced administrative support available so that I don't have to deal with this alone? Thanks in advance for your response. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Check out Copyright problems and especially Copyright problems. Double Blue (talk) 05:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent mutual correction of previous error
In thinking about it, it seems that particular edit is a fine example of bias, NPOV and systematic bias, all rolled into one. I saw the error immediately and made the change; I only thought of the alternative while writing the edit summary. I considered using the alternative, but decided I would not put that word (or similar) on that page again. That is one personal bias, which resides only because of contemporary, politically defensive over-usage, and the geographic ramifications thereof. I accept the wording as accurate and npov, even true.

That said, it still uses passive voice while active is preferred, grammatically. It is also a significantly emotive word, enough so, that it meets consensus on few other pages, even when appropriate by NPOV. I guess one could say it is a sensitized systematic bias on wiki and in the western world generally. No problem for me or from me in this case. I can accept that being within the limits and bounds of consensus, and history; I just wish a similar yardstick could be used elsewhere and, in specific cases, it isn’t.

In other cases, far more recent, where that history and consensus-acceptance are re-used with political or editorial intent to deny rights/acceptance of others, it might be a problem. Same history, but a different usage. Hope you understand. Regards, CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 09:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to the phrase "defeats suffered by"? Your subsequent edits certainly look constructive.  I don't see anything biased or inaccurate in that phrase, either, and would be surprised if anyone objected.  I am trying to understand your comments in a wider context, but perhaps the present situation simply involves an excess of caution. Cheers, Hertz1888 (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, rather than 'defeats of'. The likely lack of objection similarly suggests the systematic nature. The wider context will likely become apparent over time, elsewhere. Certainly an excess of caution on this page, on my part.  Regards, CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Back Bay (MBTA) et al. article trim
Hello. Thanks for trimming down the full citation I made to the University of Connecticut Libraries collection on the Back Bay (MBTA station) and other articles. I thought my original citation might have been awkwardly too long but wasn't sure. Glad you caught it. Best Wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

"Warsaw Ghetto" text
Hi Hertz1888, I have noticed that you moved text back up a little in Warsaw Ghetto article. I think that looks way better if it is down a bit, otherwise title is squeezed and looks funny. I will move it back down so you can see the difference but if there is any technical problem because of that I'm not aware of please feel free to revert. Cheers--Jacurek (talk) 22:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Poland
Thank you for all your help there. Cheers.--Jacurek (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Happy to oblige. Best wishes to you. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

On Paul Eidelberg
I tend to look down upon appellations about the notoriety of an individual being placed in that individual's bio article. To say that Mr. Eidelberg is "internationally known" is unobjective and non-NPOV, even if his own article was much longer than the average-size article on him that is already available. --Toussaint (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I would have thought that his weekly column published in New York would constitute sufficient international circulation to qualify, not to mention visibility abroad through books & speaking tours, but I can see your point. Cheers, Hertz1888 (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Top Radio
Do you have an opinion to add to the discussion on deleting the article? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, I just got back from there. Best wishes on the outcome of the discussion. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Armenian Quarter
Just a side note, the colloquialism was the line that went they "had 'no dog in the fight'" but I see you didn't merely revert it in retrospect, unlike as I assumed, you have my thanks for that because I also removed inconsistent double spacing which took some time. - Imperator Talk 11:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Newetowne/Newtowne
Hi there -- just a short courtesy note to say that I changed the primary original name of Cambridge to "Newtowne" from "Newetowne" based on both an official publication of the Commonwealth from 1889 and from a couple of other sources. The details are at Talk:Cambridge,_Massachusetts.

Thanks, BCorr | Брайен 23:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Greetings. I appreciate the courtesy and your earnest efforts, but would have preferred discussion in advance; I do not agree with your conclusion as to the original name.  I thought I had the name & its evolution well-sourced, and now see my previous edit as supported, rather than contradicted, by your own most official, primary source, "Report on the Custody...".  That source is a valuable find.  Please note there, on the same page, that before the name evolved into Newtowne (by 1638), the town had the name Newe Towne (two words), per the 1632 record.  Whoever wrote the history on the Cambridge city site may not have seen "Report on the Custody" or looked farther back than 1638 by other means.  As for what's most common in searches, frequency is not objective evidence; as I'm sure you know, errors sometimes are propagated & become entrenched and popular.


 * I don't want an edit war and hope we can quickly reach agreement. As you have recognized, Drake and The Boston Book give Newe Towne as the first proper name.  That is, happily, corroborated by the 1632 Mass. record.  Please review the evidence and see if you don't agree.  With your concurrence, I will put the original name back to Newe Towne and integrate into the article the Mass. records page you located.  We don't want to be responsible for propagating any errors.  Thank you. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply -- I do appreciate it. Here's the full text from that reference:
 * Town of Newtowne.'
 * July 26. Mass. Rec., Vol. I., p. 90. " Charlton, Misticke, and the newe town " are mentioned.
 * Mar. 6. Mass. Rec., Vol. I., p. 94. " Bounds between Charles-Towne and Newe Towne " established.
 * 8. Mass. Rec., Vol. I.f p. 180. " Newe Town now called Cambridge."
 * 2. Mass. Rec.; Vol. I., p. 228. "It is ordered that Newtowne shall hence-forward be called Cambridge."
 * 8. Mass. Rec., Vol. I.f p. 180. " Newe Town now called Cambridge."
 * 2. Mass. Rec.; Vol. I., p. 228. "It is ordered that Newtowne shall hence-forward be called Cambridge."


 * So I don't think that anything is completely clear here: The title of the section says "Newtowne" while the quotes from the records say "Newe Towne", "Newe Town", and "Newtowne". This all says to me that while spelling may have varied according to who was writing, the Commonwealth considers the original name to be "Newtowne," and I do think there is insufficient evidence to conclude that there was an evolution in the accepted spelling in the space of just six years, just as it would be unlikely that "Charlton" evolved into "Charles-Towne".


 * Thanks Again
 * BCorr | Брайен 01:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The Commonwealth, like most of us, would, I believe, use as a section heading the ultimate, most developed version, not the most primitive. They do not claim that the heading represents the original name.  As for there having been an evolution, it's not I (alone) that's saying it.  The point is cited (Drake, p. 306), and we can (& should) use that.  The Mass. records are the earliest and most authoritative.  If contradicted by some later publications (1913 Atkins and recent city site), we can either omit them or comment on the apparent contradiction.  I see no alternative then to go with the 1632 version (p. 94)—which is very clear—as the basic authority.  It's the earliest proper name (capitalized) we have that's on contemporaneous, official public record.  If I thought there was substantial doubt as to the original name, on this basis, I would suggest putting alternatives in a footnote, but as it stands I don't see the need even for that. You have actually cinched the case for Newe Towne by providing the 1889 Mass. source.  Hertz1888 (talk) 02:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

User:ArabH
The better place to report would be at 3RR (Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring).  Spencer T♦C 19:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Minoan Eruption
I have reverted the changes you made to BC style on Minoan Eruption. This is nothing to do with 'faith-neutral' styles - this is the original style used on this article that has been haphazardly interfered with over the past year and had become inconsistent. It is not in accordance with policy to change the style. The original format is to be retained which is part of what I edited .--Mountwolseley (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the notification. What I observed was that the majority of instances prior to your edit were in BCE/CE style.  You made 7 changes, whereas it took me only 4 in the opposite direction to make usage consistent.  From my perspective you were the one making the switch contrary to established use. I was not aware of where things stood a year ago, and you did not mention that. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Punctuation, references and Coax cable
Hi Hertz1888,

I've undone your edit to the coax cable page. I think punctuation should normally follow a reference, not the other way around - this is how most scientific journals are punctuated, but I have seen several wikipedia pages following your preference - if there is a wiki policy about this that I have missed, please point me in the right direction and I'll happily undo my undo. GyroMagician (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * GyroMagician: The convention is given in Manual of Style: "Inline citations are generally placed after any punctuation such as a comma or period, with no intervening space." Hope this helps! Gail (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Curious. Okay, that explains it. I'll put your edit back and start obeying the style guide myself. Thanks. GyroMagician (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is fast sometimes - it's already been corrected! GyroMagician (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Greetings, Gyro. I have come across discussions of alternative citation styles (pardon me if I can't pinpoint where).  If it's any comfort, I would say that you are not wrong, only outnumbered here on WP, where the punctuation-first style definitely predominates.  Mixing the styles is, I believe, discouraged (and looks sloppy).  Best wishes, Hertz1888 (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey Hertz, Yes, mixing styles is far worse than any particular style. I did wonder why I saw the 'comma first' style so often on WP - now that I know it's the house style I'll stick to it too. Thanks for the pointers (and to Gail) GyroMagician (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for correcting me here. I'll put the DeLorean back where I found it! haz (talk) 08:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: AGF
Thanks for taking the time to discuss this with me. I realize that it looks malicious at first glance, but if you examine the edits made, it's clearly someone who doesn't really understand how sources work trying to update the information and make it more balanced (from his/her point of view). The fact that the person asked where the research was for that section on their talk page shows that they don't even realize there are sources there, so they obviously didn't deliberately or maliciously try to invert sourced information. And that sourced information they changed wasn't even correct anymore, so I think they were genuinely trying to contribute positively. This person updated the death toll to "more than 500" which is the current number, added the ground invasion which actually happened, and changed what they thought was false propaganda to what they thought was true. I mean, that section looked ridiculously sympathetic to Israel when it hadn't been updated since Dec. 30th. (BTW I appreciated the contributions you made to updating it) It's true that this person's edits needed to be reverted the way they were done, no doubt. But I think they could have used a welcome message and some explanation like on a level 1 warning, because it seems like now they're just angry and still unaware of how sources work.

I just find that Wikipedia can be kind of a harsh community and that people tend to be not very forgiving about ignorance or mistakes, although I know that people are stressed about all of the work that needs to be done and all of the constant vandalism trying to undo any progress. But I just wanted to defend this particular person because I felt they genuinely wanted to contribute but didn't really get how it works. --Ships at a Distance (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Benjamin Netanyahu
Accusations of similarities between Iran with Nazi Germany: can we shorten this? - Well done! I was thinking there must be a better headline! Chendy (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you liked it. Thanks for your considerate note!  All the best. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

FPH
I work at Fountain Pen Hospital. What, if anything, does that have to do with editing a page about Kensington, Brooklyn, my hometown, editing a link to the local, non-commerical site that everyone there reads and loves? In fact, the link was already there, all I did was update the address. I also added a link to the Kensington Facebook group, which was also removed. Why is this wrong but a link to a flickr group isn't? How is this 'spam' from Fountain Pen Hospital? It has absolutely nothing to do with FPH, whatsoever, nor is it even spam.


 * I removed two links from the Kensington article that appeared to violate the rules against blog sites, as specifically referenced in the edit summaries. A flickr link may not belong there either.  However, I've no idea what you are referring to regarding FPH, spam, etc.; you may be addressing the wrong editor about that.  You can learn more about what's allowed and what's not by reading WP:ELNO and WP:NOT.  Please sign and date your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (these: ~). Cheers, Hertz1888 (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Is facebook a Blog? How does a link to that group violate this rule? Smcguigan11218 (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a social networking site. See WP:ELNO, #10, then click on "social networking".  It's specifically mentioned by name. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for your quick action in reverting an edit which aimed to have Hyssop_zaatar.jpg deleted. I contributed that photo to wikipedia, and unfortunately the photo itself (and its inclusion into certain articles) has proven to be very controversial with some editors. --Nsaum75 (talk) 05:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Glad I could help. Unfortunately, some editors are allergic to the word "Israel" or anything with Hebrew writing on it, making vigilance essential. Nice to hear from you, and thanks for your contributions.  All the best, Hertz1888 (talk) 05:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Illegal settlements in Hebron
Instead of wasting my time listing all the stuff, I'll direct you to this playlist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqlRBnLAn-g&feature=PlayList&p=9F0F0FD493D1733A&index=0&playnext=1

NOW, will you watch it, or are one of those that puts on blindfold & earplugs to ignore what's wrong?

75.7.251.235 (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

analog tv
--76.238.9.255 (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)Hi. This is Bob. I was wondering why a law was passed that said that analog television had to end.


 * Hi, Bob. A short answer is found here, on a site that may lead you to other relevant and useful information. I hope this helps.  Best wishes, Hertz1888 (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hertz!
Thought I would pop by to say hello and thanks for all the good work.

Jonathan Telaviv1 (talk) 07:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This response is long overdue, and I owe you a humble apology for not responding sooner. I had a crisis to deal with soon after your note arrived, and am still catching up.  It was thoughtful of you to "pop by", and I am pleased that you did.  This also gives me the opportunity to thank you for your own excellent and numerous contributions.


 * A couple of the articles I watch, Golan Heights and Old City (Jerusalem) have recently been especially subject to imbalancing and falsifications, but do not appear to be well monitored. Would you be willing to put them on your watch list?  Some additional patrolling could make a difference.


 * Thanks again for your kind note. Very best wishes. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! I added them to my watch list but I'm overloaded at the moment so no promises. Best Wishes

Jonathan Telaviv1 (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Understood. I don't want to overload you further. Please let me know if I can help you with anything. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Packard's Corner (MBTA station)
Thanks for fixing the cords on the Packard's Corner (MBTA station) page. It was just a bad copy and paste job on my part.--Found5dollar (talk) 00:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

East Jerusalem
Hi Hertz, You left me a message saying not to add personal analysis to the article because it's in violation with Wikipedia rules. But if you read the article, you'll see it's written from an Israeli point of view. So I was just trying to balance the article wich is a bit biased. Thanks for the notification. Please reply. Greets --karimobo (talk) 20:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It clearly says in the Jordanian rule section that the Jordanian control of East Jerusalem wasn't recognised by any country, while in the Israeli rule section ignoring the fact that the Israeli annexation was condemned by the international community and several international institutions. And also isn't recognised by any country.
 * Further the Israeli wall around Jerusalem is described as a 'security barrier', clearly a eufimism for something wich again sparked a lot of negative reactions from the international community. And isolated Arabs living in East Jerusalem from their relatives in the West Bank.
 * The demographic changes made by the Israeli government, like building new areas exclusively for Jewish residents aren't mentioned anywhere in the 'Demographics' section.
 * In the sovereingty section only two pro-Israeli 'experts' are cited.


 * Karimobo, many of the characterizations in your edits are strictly your personal opinions, and are unsourced. That is not the way to "balance the article".  Wikipedia is based upon reliable sourcing and verifiability.  It cannot state in its own voice, for example, that settlements are illegal.  It can only give information on various sides of the debate, with the positions reliably sourced.  In the Israeli settlement article, neutrality was already disputed.  For some reason you deleted the tag for that, and deleted sourced content without justification; doing that would generally be regarded as vandalistic.  Major changes that might be controversial are best discussed on the articles' talk pages and an effort made to seek consensus.  You renamed an article without giving other editors any opportunity for discussion.  That too is contrary to the spirit of collaborative editing that is fundamental to Wikipedia.  If you have basic disagreements with the tone or content of articles, I urge you to use the talk pages to discuss ways in which the articles could be improved.  Thank you for coming here for clarification, but please pursue further concerns on the talk pages.  Also, the quality of your English (or typing) indicates that your editing would benefit greatly from the use of a spell checker. Cheers, Hertz1888 (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Not the capital of Israel
The capital of Israel may be Jerusalem according to the Jerusalem Law, but according to the United Nations, Tel Aviv is. Therefore, officially, according to international law, Tel Aviv-Yaffa is the capital of Israel. That's why I put it as being the capital on my article List of national capital cities by population, and on the article for Tel Aviv. Jprulestheworld (talk) 15:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

תודה
Thank you for your ever-vigilant monitering of Middle Eastern food-related articles. It is a shame that so many people feel the need to expand political conflicts to include every facet of daily life, including tasty mealtime treats. --Nsaum75 (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Please -- can this be reverted?
Please -- can this be reverted?  Bus stop (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind -- it has been reverted -- thank you. Bus stop (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Original reference
Thanks for finding the original reference for a citation used in Erich Segal - I was going through and removing obvious spam/COI/copyright violation links by a problem editor and couldn't really check them all out each individually for a new source. I'm glad someone was on the page who could. DreamGuy (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Are these tags merited
You have been editing "A land without a people..." longer than anyone else. I would like to get the tags off. I made some recent revisions/additions intended to balance and better source the article. I would like your opinion on the appropriateness of the newly retagged article.Historicist (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, due to health problems I cannot get into that fight right now, and don't know how long it will be. My regrets & best wishes. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel better. Fortunately, there are a number of responsible and dedicated editors.Historicist (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Jordan - Ethnicity
Hi Hertz1888, one of my specialist interests relates to population statistics of various sorts. Obviously such a topic is very reliant on real factual data. In some cases relevant, reliable or trustworthy sources for this data are hard to identify. I'm well aware that for many people any information relating to population statistics by, for example, ethnicity or demographics can be quite emotive and for these people factual information may conflict with their perceived or desired views.

I recently noticed some strange statistical discrepancies shown for ethnic groups in the main "Infobox" box on Jordan so spent some time investigating. For Jordan this turns out to be quite a complex topic (due to recent historic, demographic and political events and trends in that region) and there's very little seemingly reliable information of a sufficiently detailed and factual nature available. I did eventually find an apparently sound data source: Joshuaproject. I realised, and took into account, the fact that this data is provided by an agency with potentially controversial views (as they appear to be a Christian organisation which for many people living in, or interested in, the Middle East may possibly present problems), however on balance this should not be a reason to invalidate their research or factual data (which for this specific purpose appears more comprehensive and better compiled than anyone else's).

I went to the trouble of downloading (in full compliance with their copyright notice), analysing, formatting and presenting the relevant data from their website. I have provided this in full on Jordan Talk - new Ethnicity section together with a proper explanation. Using this data (which as far as I can see is better than anything else previously used on Jordan for this specific purpose) I carefully updated the "infobox".

Overnight user Hattar393 has simply changed the figures without any explanation or citation of any credible source for the newly substituted data. I assume (though have no proof) that Hattar393 is simply making a personal estimate or guess or perhaps has some political preference or agenda for the resulting population ratios? In any case I have reversed/undone that edit as well as added a clearer citation to the reference for the figures I believe more credible and reliable. (I'm also thinking of moving the table I created from the talk page to a suitable part of the main Jordan page - however I'll leave it for now and see if it generates any interest or discussion where it is first.

It seems from looking at the talk page for Hattar393 that you've already had a couple of previous instances of similar behaviour from this user? If time permits please would you either monitor this user or take whatever action (if any) you deem appropriate. Thanks!

-- Kind Regards, Barryz1 (talk) 12:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, due to health problems I cannot get into that fight right now, and don't know how long it will be. My regrets & best wishes. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries but thanks for letting me know. I'm sincerely sorry to hear you're unwell and very much hope you get better soon Judging by your contributions to Wikipedia - which I've taken a look at - we really need you to!


 * Is there any other senior user/editor/administrator you could point me in the direction of that might be able to help?


 * Barryz1 (talk) 23:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit summary
Your recent edit summary [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Za%27atar&diff=next&oldid=278016396 rv racist vandalism. Image included per consensus on talk page] on Za'atar you made two ill-considered accusations. Calling someone with whom you are in a content dispute a 'vandal' is frowned upon. "Any good faith effort to improve the encylopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." (WP:Vandalism) Further, accusing the editor of racism in this case is clearly uncivil. Finally, by committing this incivility in an edit summary, where it will not be removed, you've made it permanent. Please be more careful in the future. Jd2718 (talk) 03:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your concern. Understood, on general principles.  In this particular case, what makes you think that was a "good faith effort"?  Will you also warn the other editor, who peremptorily removed "zionist za'atar"?  That's where the racism is; the edit summary with that phrase will also remain on the record.  This and other food-related articles have been under persistent attack to expunge any reference to Israel; this is one more instance.  I am not the one creating the hostile environment. The other editor is self-accused per the previous edit summary. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The same editor who removed the image as "zionist za'atar" has also labeled it for deletion under .  Since I contributed the article, I didn't want to remove the speedy delete tag until discussing if either of you felt that it was needed.  I can "re-do" the image description/license to address the concerns. However it appears the user only singled out the Hebrew-language version, as the "Syrian" version also has a logo yet wasn't tagged. I am assuming good faith, however if you look at the history of the article, there have been repeated attempts to remove only the Hebrew-langauge example. --Nsaum75 (talk) 04:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable about the licensing rules to know how the criteria apply to your photo (or don't). Just the same, I'd be surprised if no photo can be used that includes a logo.  The other editor, at this point, is a single-purpose account, and that purpose is the highly specific one of trying to wipe away this one photo.  Note the immediate attempt to remove it from the article, without waiting to see if the deletion request would be honored. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I have brought the question to the Za'atar talk page, for input from other editors. If you could, kindly repeat your concerns there, so that others may be aware of them. I will research more into the licensing issue. There are thousands of examples of photos with logos in them on Wikipedia, so I agree that it would be surprising if no logo-related photos could be used. --Nsaum75 (talk) 04:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * He did not accuse you of vandalism
 * The issue of cultural appropriation is addressed in the article, and it is, according to the article, touchy. The editor did not use the word "racist" in his summary. You did.
 * Your response, repeating the racism charge against the (now blocked) editor is unacceptable. I would hope that you take far more care in choosing your words in the future.
 * If you are unable to work in this area without labeling those with whom you disagree, perhaps you could find another corner of Wikipedia to work in? Jd2718 (talk) 10:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is an important difference between this situation and a mere disagreement over article content. When the word "Zionist" is used pejoratively (generally by those who cannot bring themselves to use the words Israel or Israeli), it is not with cordial intent.  It indicates a certain hostile behavior pattern.  Despite that, my reaction in calling it racism may have been a bit exaggerated or imprecise.  (Perhaps "anti-Semitism" would be a more precise description than racism.)  If you care to delve further, I think my record will show a remarkable degree of fairhandedness in the course of 14,000+ edits, this in the face of unrelenting vandalism to articles (even those devoted to foods) related to Israel, Jews and Judaism.  I can certainly redouble my efforts at avoiding overreaction, and will try to do so. Hertz1888 (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Zionist terminology
I have left a warning on the talk page of the IP that made this edit to your user page. --Nsaum75 (talk) 18:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! What you responded to was (hopefully) the final salvo of an ugly encounter.  I really appreciate your support. On the za'atar-hummus front, there's good news.  Thought you would like to know. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi
I dont vandalize, i contribute! Theres a big difference my friend. I am simply just trying to making Wikipedia articles better and more accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hattar393 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What in particular are you referring to? Hertz1888 (talk) 01:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Hertz1888, you warned Hattar393 about wp:vand last July on his talk page. I've been having very similar (though perhaps more complex) problems with him this year. I've also warned him (on his talk page) and he's not only ignored me (other than denying his wp:vand) but also deleted both your and my (and other people's) warning perhaps in an effort to make it more difficult for a user visiting his page for a quick check to see what is going on. I asked you for help (see above but unfortunately you explained that due to ill health you would not be able to get involved. As and when time has allowed, I've been looking through Hattar393's edits and whilst most of them look reasonably ok (though clearly biased and very rarely if ever supported by comment or explanation let alone any form of source or reference whatsoever) I have noticed a number that most certainly do not (anything to do with population statistics - one of my own subjects - seem completely made up and baseless except they perhaps support his personal world-view).


 * Just out of curiosity (and by way of a fairly trivial example) you might like to look at the following two edits he made again to the Jordan River‎ article despite your warnings last year (for removing the Israeli flag simply because he didn't like it)....


 * •	00:55, 25 March 2009 (hist) (diff) Jordan River ‎
 * •	00:54, 25 March 2009 (hist) (diff) Jordan River


 * If you have time please look carefully at the history on his talk page (and mine) and notice all the efforts he has gone to covering his tracks and erasing (which he has just done again) all and any warnings, records or observations on his behaviour rather than simply and honestly resolving amicably.


 * By the way, you are not the only person who suddenly found a new section on your talk page labeled simply "Hi"; he did exactly the same to me, except he didn't bother to then say anything and wasn't signed in so I had to trace him by his IP address. See IP address 98.215.117.84 adds "hi" to end of page.


 * I was considering a wp:AIV report as a possible next step but would very much welcome any comments or advice you may have first. (Alternatively if you can somehow provide me with an email address I'll happily correspond with you that way).


 * Many thanks, and I hope you health is showing signs of improvment? Kind Regards -- Barryz1 (talk) 09:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * PS. You might also find it interesting to take a quick glance at his user page, which was quite informative, just before he decided to blank it. -- Barryz1 (talk) 10:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Greetings, Barryz1. Please forgive my slowness in responding. Also, thank you for your kind words.  I am almost fully recovered from the previous health problems.


 * I am not an administrator and cannot take administrative action, but will try to advise. It seems to me that you have been engaged with editor Hattar393 long enough, and have been very patient and more than fair.  Obviously you consider this editor's behavior disruptive, but that does not have to remain solely your problem, to deal with alone and endlessly.  I believe the friendly greetings ("Hi") and protestations of innocence ("I don't vandalize")—which may well be meant sincerely—may be keeping you involved long past time for other action.


 * WP is based on certain principles, outlined at WP:FIVE, that involve a collaborative attitude toward editing, and that implies, I think, a willingness to respond to constructive criticism. Editor Hattar may be disregarding these principles. If you see a pattern of disruptiveness (there are criteria for this - see WP:DE), it is time to hand the problem off to others.  You might find additional useful guidance at WP:DFTT.  Unless the behavior is blatant, it is generally necessary to give a series of warnings before making a report at WP:AIV.  The principal warning message templates are listed at WP:WARN, and there are others.  I hope this helps.  Cheers, Hertz1888 (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Hertz1888, many thanks for your response and advice and I'm glad to hear your health is on the mend.


 * It's reassuring to know you felt I'd been fair and reasonable with Hattar393 - that was certainly my intention, though I'm still concerned by his apparent personal agenda for steadily (and perhaps surreptitiously) changing facts and figures and emphasis and order within articles, without explanation or citing references or sources, simply (it seems to me) to more closely correspond with his own views.


 * I also note that he's not a "hit and run vandal" but seems to be more stealthy and systematic with patience and a long memory (and a method and motive) willing to wait then come back and see if he can get away with it another time.... part of the problem may be that he might believe in the integrity of what he doing, not realise how far from neutral he is and of course not realise he is simply introducing unsupported factual errors and inconsistencies..... obviously it's not my job or sole responsibility to try and sort this out (and anyhow I don't have the time, experience or relevant levels of authority to deal with it properly). However I think all serious minded and sincere editors should be on the look out for this sort of thing and try hard to protect Wikipedia from these sort of "revisionists" who might consider themselves on a mission to re-write history, or something!


 * I've seen the the vandal reports etc so realise there are probably plenty of far worse offenders editing WP but he's just one I've noticed and caught at it.


 * I’ll take a proper look at WP:DE etc as you’ve suggested. Thanks again and kind regards Barryz1 (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Having now looked at H's talk page, I am convinced you are way overinvolved. Please be careful not to get yourself in trouble by further battling there; it seems futile anyway.  I really think it is time to pass along to others any further problems with editor H.


 * For future use, in general, a page you may find useful (in case you haven't already discovered it) is WP:WARN. I find "npov2", "unsourced2" and "error2" are frequently handy & appropriate; you may find others. Hertz1888 (talk) 10:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for drawing my attention to WP:WARN, which I hadn't noticed before (although I had looked at the way several other editors had given warnings, as well as read quite a few of the WP policies etc and was modelling my response on a sort of imitative best practice).


 * I know there are quite a few articles and debates on the perceived strengths and weaknesses of Wikipedia's "collaborative" approach; on the one hand it's very productive (quickly generating lots of impressive looking contents, most of which is fairly reliable) and of course enjoyable for many people to participate in, but on the other hand it's deeply flawed in that a small number of people can (and do) easily abuse it by persistently inserting bogus, biased or distorted (though reasonably convincing looking) information according to their own agendas. Also there are plenty of well meaning but uninformed people changing things according to what they believe without actually checking to make sure first. Even if these people are caught out and pushed back now and then they can, if they persevere, still gradually re-write history and change people's perceptions of the world. For all the obvious reasons Wikipedia consistently scores very high PageRank so its “facts” and articles often come out in the top two or three search engine placements when people are casually looking things up – therefore whatever gets into Wikipedia can potentially be very influential.


 * I've noticed that if people insert silly comments or rude words into articles these usually get noticed and reversed out within a few minutes however if someone steadily enters biased and unsupportable (and of course unreferenced) "information" much of it will remain unchallenged for far longer - some of it even ends up there so long it becomes "accepted" despite probably having just been made up or a matter of personal opinion in the first place!


 * Anyhow, thanks again. Kind Regards Barryz1 (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)