User talk:Hertz1888/Archive 3

irgun
thought u might be interested in recent issue there as a prior editor. irgun, reverted by Roland R. 216.165.95.70 (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Links Reverted
You reverted my links pointing out WP:ELNO, prohibitions #6 & #1, first for #6 the link I added does not require you to login to view anything related to that - loging into that site allows you to view your own running log - and has nothing to do with the course maps and race details on that site - you can view the map of both races. For #1, the link is unique beyond what the content is on wikipedia because the link is to an interactive course map of the race. I will be adding those links back as they are appropriate and are not violating #6 & #1 - if there is any other problems please discuss them with me. And thanks for welcoming me! Logthatrun (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Also on the Pittsburgh Marathon - I know the people organizing this race and the link I added is a course map in an interactive form from them, so it is useful to people wanting more information about this race and as any runner will tell you having the course map is important Logthatrun (talk) 01:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with the Pittsburgh situation, but can tell you that the Boston article already has enough maps. Links should be added very sparingly in general.  For additional guidance please see WP:NOTLINK. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * So can I add the map back for the Pittsburgh Marathon? If we have one for the Boston article, why not for the Pittsburgh Marathon? Logthatrun (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In case I was not sufficiently clear, I meant that Boston has enough maps without yours. I would not encourage you to add your link, handy as it may be, to any article on Wikipedia.  This is an encyclopedia, not a blog site or directory. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * How come someone else was just now allowed to a link to their course map on the Pittsburgh Marathon page when I just originally added on and it was removed yet this other person is allowed to add on? What is up with that? This is getting to be a bit ridiculous. Logthatrun (talk) 02:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I just did an undo to their change - there was no reason to change that since the link to the map posted has elevation stats and millage markers, therefore I don't see any way the other one was a "better map" Logthatrun (talk) 02:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "How come someone else..." etc. I have no idea.  I have tried to point out some of the applicable policies and rules under which we operate.  I would prefer to leave any further decisions—and discussions—on what is allowed or not allowed to someone who is an administrator. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Harvard Bridge revisions
Thanks, those look good. What do you think of the change in emphasis and tone so far? - Denimadept (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

This book gives excessive detail. I'm trying to figure out where to stop with the original description. If you don't mind, I'd appreciate it if you could take an occasional look and let me know if you think I go too far. - Denimadept (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd be more than happy to do so, hopefully beginning tomorrow, including a response to your earlier question. How much detail is essential, when does it become excessive?  Good question generically.  This page mentions "major" and "unnecessary" details, but unfortunately fails to give distinguishing criteria or examples.  At least it reminds us to stay focused. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

"These changes are still under discussion"
Hi Hertz1888,

I note you've reverted to a version with numerous undisputed factual errors and other problems (described on the talk page) here. Until the discussion (to which you are invited) is resolved, I ask you to restore the existing version. Anon's suggested version also exists in parked form on the talk page for discussion. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I see it has been taken care of, if you accept the compromise, which I support because it appears to keep the paragraph neutral while making straightforward statements. I hope this resolves the matter. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

thank you so much for your help
the version as it was, was extremely extreme POV, and was based on an arabic paper source translated into that obscure website. I simply drafted two controversial terms to strict WP:NPOV and I don't think there's any legit dispute about it... 216.165.95.70 (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * May we all ride the light rail in harmony. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * :) Btw, this user colourinthemeaning comes every once in a while and changes the lead of several articles to fit his POV in a very strange way. Even CNN and New York Times don't call them settlements which is clearly POV . I don't know why he insist to say "settlements and neigborhoods". Neighborhoods is not disputed. Settlements are discussed in later sentences. He does this incessantly and he must be stopped, and watched. 216.165.95.70 (talk) 10:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

figures
We're dealing with MIT people here. I want to be completely clear with them. :-D Hammer it home that they were imprecise! Oh. My. GAAAAWD! I'll consider it a victory if I can get them to fix it. - Denimadept (talk) 03:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand. But, if we round by 0.02 smoot, that's a diff. of < 1.4 inches.  Would even MIT people be that picky?  Almost certainly within the uncertainty of measurement -- and less than one ear!


 * I questioned your calculation because I used the 1.70 m figure shown in same paragraph. Of course 1.7018 is more precise.  My regrets.  Cheers, Hertz1888 (talk) 03:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Considering how big their ear is at the moment... :-o - Denimadept (talk) 04:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I think a "bathtub" structure is a basin to keep water out. Thing is, given the location, that's kinda obvious. Otherwise the underpass would have filled with water very quickly. I've removed the term. I figure engineers will likely take it as given. - Denimadept (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * And here I thought it was to keep water in. This editing is getting to be a drain. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Re exhortation: you're NO fun. :-D I have to admit I was expecting something like that, but you did better than just delete it. Good.

Note the references to MIT tales regarding the naming of the bridge. We're not done straightening out that paragraph, but it's a start. - Denimadept (talk) 23:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Granite blocks
I've no idea. The HAER document just says they were removed. I suppose we can remove the phrase. - Denimadept (talk) 06:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The only reference to granite blocks seems to be the granite block pavement used in the Cambridge-side underpass. If so, we don't care and it's safe to remove the text. - Denimadept (talk) 06:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you don't know for sure either, it may have to remain a mystery. I would guess that just removing "the" (& the tag) would stop eyebrows from being raised. Mine for sure.  The old postcards are a wonderful addition. Hertz1888 (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's an interesting idea. I'm waiting for two more cards.  One is for this bridge and may replace one of the cards already in place, being cleaner.  The other is for the Longfellow Bridge. - Denimadept (talk) 13:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Greetings!
Hello Hertz1888!

Based on your past edits regarding food, I thought would bring to your attention some recent entries on the Falafel talk page, re:bias, as well as edits to the article itself. I have made my own edits, to try to remove POV from the situation, but its always good to have a third party review them. Hope all is well! --Nsaum75 (talk) 03:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Falafel x2
Shalom Hertz1888!

I thought I would let you know there is an ongoing discussion on the Falafel Talk page discussing whether or not all mention of sourced information, including photos, that reference Israel should be removed. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!! --Nsaum75 (talk) 01:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Dome of The Rock
This is a very sensitive issues regarding Jerusalem. The pages is allocated to the old city which was considered part of the UNISCO world heritage. the dome of rock deserve which represent on the most magnificent features of the old city with a history goes back to a more than one thousand years old to be viewed as a main picture in the article. The Muslim era of the city which lasted more than 1300 years also deserve more expanding. The majority of the standing walls and building in old city of Jerusalem represent this era, the thing which is not disputed even by the state of Israel. Wikipedia as I understood is a neutral source and have nothing just to record things as it is not as people hopes. In my editing I maintained the Jewish history of city as well as the Christian but a the dome of the rock as a great Icon of the city must be also represented as well as the Islamic era of its history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soufray (talk • contribs) 17:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Presumably this discussion concerns your edits to Old City (Jerusalem). (Dome of the Rock is a different article.) Your repeated edits to the introductory section serve to invert historical order, and appear also, by deleting certain sourced content, to violate WP:NPOV.  Major changes to the lead are best done collaboratively, with discussion on the article's talk page.  When you reintroduce the same edit repeatedly, with no comment and in apparent disregard of messages left you in previous edit summaries, it is disruptive, and can be seen as edit warring.  Whenever you edit, please fill in the edit summary per WP:FIES.  It helps everyone.  Thank you. Hertz1888 (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Mentioning the name of the city is a linguistic issue which is usually resolved by starting depending on the alphabetic order of the language name in English, so Arabic should be mentioned first. The other issue her is the story of destroying the Jewish quarter, this issue is a controversial issue, steering hatred and completely out of context. The reference supporting this issue is biased toward the Jewish, and came from an Israeli newspaper. I could easily referred to the incident of burning al-Aqsa mosque and I have hundreds of Arabic and Islamic resources which I can cite as known for everybody.


 * Inspired by virtue of the Wikipedia, the article was celebrating Jerusalem as a multicultural and multi-faith city which panned a Jewish, Islamic and a Christian eras (Note that I mentioned the order Jewish history first to maintain the chronicle religious order). again to proof my good deeds toward neutrality and balanced information I avoided edit warring by not referring to the Canaanite who were the native inhabitants before the Israelites and I could cite Torah, the Bible and even the Quran as the  as reference. but We need to maintain the minimum level of agreement regarding Jerusalem and maintain a level neutrality, fairness and justice and avoid Vandalism. I am happy to talk to you, and I hope you understand the other side of the world point of view represented by the fifth of the world population as well as I fully understand and respect both the Jewish and Christian faiths and histories as part of Jerusalem heritage and the entire world heritage. Thank you, Soufray


 * I would prefer that you take this discussion to the article's talk page. Please try for consensus there, for anything possibly controversial, especially in regard to changes in the established wording of the introduction. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
I have replied to your post.--Launchballer (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Seen & understood. Thank you for your cooperation. Hertz1888 (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it okay to remove it, but link to it in the page history?--Launchballer (talk) 15:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The entries on your talk page? Sure.  Best wishes, Hertz1888 (talk) 15:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Your reversion (reinclusion) of the failuremag.com link
This link seems to be the subject of long term spamming by a particular user,. As you can see here, he is the one who originally added the link to that article. - MrOllie (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked around, and could find this particular link attached only to this article. The common element of what you call spamming is the magazine.  On a case by case basis, this link is an appropriate resource for this article, perhaps uniquely so.  Let's not deprive the reader of it because of someone's zeal in adding numerous links from the same publication. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Israelites
Thanks, that was careless of me. Dougweller (talk) 13:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. We all miss a few.  Looks like you cover a wide gamut, and with high effectiveness.  Thanks for your good work, and for the note! Hertz1888 (talk) 14:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It was me that had written that earlier
I wanted to delete it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please use the edit summary "next time". A different username, no explanation given leaves your intentions unclear. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Help me!
I need help with Asmahan and Farid al atrash articles.

There is this dispute between me and this Egyptian guy, he claims they are Egyptians (they are not), anyway I changed it to Arab, but still he keeps reverting my edits and falsifying (Egyptifying) the articles, please put an end to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asmahan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farid_al-Atrash --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I can't be of much help in "putting an end to it". You and the other editor are engaged in full-fledged edit wars on both articles, and have both received warnings.  I am not familiar with the topics and can't render a third opinion.  I suggest you read WP:EW.  It describes several alternative options, at least one of which I hope will lead you to a resolution of the conflict. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Woody Guthrie
nominated Woody Guthrie for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.—141.155.159.210 (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

are you authority here?
admin or moderator? can you ban people?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone here can report people. Hertz1888 (talk) 15:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

But are you admin or moderator or a normal user? I saw you gave a warning to user:93.96.32.102 --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Normal". I'm a little surprised at the question.  I guess you didn't know that ordinary editors could do that. Hertz1888 (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

re Thank you
You are welcome. Cirt (talk) 19:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Socks
I have an odd feeling that there may be a sock or two in our midst. --Nsaum75 (talk) 00:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be at all surprised. Either socks or individuals working together.  Too many coincidences.  At least the foul mouth who was banned today should never darken your talk page again under that name.  In their own eyes they can do no wrong, of course, as any contradiction can be attributed to the "Israeli lobby".


 * Please forgive my delay in replying to your previous message. I have been monitoring that situation and will help where I can.  Meanwhile, as we saw today, trouble is breaking out elsewhere.  If enough of a pattern of disruption emerges, a formal complaint may be in order.


 * You seem to be holding your own. Thank you very much.  Always glad to hear from you. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Nsaum75, if it is me you are referring to then you are wrong. Admin can check my IP. People are starting to wake up. The days of Israeli domination of Arab articles are soon over. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Below is a copy of a comment I left on the talk page of Supreme Deliciousness. Please post any reponses there.


 * Legitimately mentioning of Israel in an article about food (or anything else), is not domination of an article; There are Arab Israelis, Christian Israelis, Jewish Israelis and many others.


 * The world is full of many different kinds of people, its call the "spice of life". Some people choose not to recognize Israel as a modern, existant country, and therefore refer to the land "Occupied Palestine", and they have every right to hold that as their own personal beliefs; However when they move beyond their personal beliefs and choose to deny Israel and its culture by systematically removing any references to it from articles, they are committing censorship, repressing facts, and trying to mislead others by presenting only information that they deem others should have knowledge of.


 * When people think and act this way, they ensure that there will never be peace in the middle east. True, Israeli society has adopted many foods that are very popular in the Arab world; but this no different than Arabs adopting Hummus (which is of ancient egyptian origin) or pita (which many sources attribute to the ancient Israelites matzo).


 * Furthermore, many modern-day Israeli Jews come from families who have lived along side of Arabs for centuries -- they didn't move here from somewhere else -- this is their homeland; and religion aside, they have shared in the development of music, art, language and yes, even cuisine. You deny them their history and contributions when you deny their modern nationality.


 * Lastly, wikipedia is based upon uncensored, reliably documented information; it is not based on only presenting information you personally agree with, nor is it based upon presenting information intended to promote a specific agenda.


 * One person's truth may be the other person's fiction. We should present all the information available, so the reader can make a informed decision for themselves.


 * --Nsaum75 (talk) 08:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

There are Palestinian Muslims and Christians living in a part of Palestine outside the westbank and Gaza that some nations and some people call "Israel", this does not mean they are Israelis. Articles have to be written in a correct historical perspective not false citizenship handed out recently to the natives by the foreign occupiers.

Its not censorship to delete false information that is falsifying the Arab identity of Arab foods. Arab foods may be popular in what you call "Israel", but Arab foods are also popular in many European countrys. The claims Israel has to Arab foods are as non-existent as Europeans have to Arab foods. Yet today we see the name "Israel" next to Syria, Lebanon and Palestine on all Arab food articles on wikipedia. This make the reader believe that Arab foods are historically Israeli. Is this neutral or falsification of history? Culture theft I call it! Arabs have not adopted hummus. Hummus is arabic and there isn't one shred of evidence showing that its egyptian or something else. Those Jews living in middle eastern countries were living in Yemen, Morocoo, Iran, Berber regions, kurdish inhabited regions, those people never ate hummus, falafel, kubbe or other Levantine Arab foods that has been hijacked on wikipedia. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This ends this discussion on this page. No point to conducting it in two (or more) places.  Moreover, this page will not be used as a battleground. Hertz1888 (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Holiest site in Judaism
I saw your edits today at Dome of the Rock. I really do not think that this admits of any doubt. Jews are not presently allowed to pray on the platform. So, the go-to place is the wide space or room in the Kotel tunnel that is the closest point to the Foundation Stone at which one is legally permitted to pray. Praying there is rather a big deal, not easy to get in because of space constraints, but rabbinic connections can get you admitted in an emergency (i.e: a suddenly sick relative) and there is an actual, formal system in place whereby anyone getting married can come to the tunnel on their wedding day and by showing the printed wedding invitation the chatan and kallah can each (separately, of course) be admitted with one companion on the morning of the wedding day. You will find, of course, myriad sources stating that the Kotel is the "holiest" spot, but you will not find anything in traditional Jewish literature to support anything except proximity to the stone, the site of the Akedah, the  the kodesh ha kodeshim.Historicist (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your considerate message. Your words bring light.  I was unsure of the consensus identification of the Stone with the location of the Holy of Holies, but now know better.  Thank you for the clarifications, and above all for your many and obviously learned contributions to Wikipedia.  Some of the details in your message above are lacking from the Western Wall Tunnel article, though very relevant to it, and I invite you to add them there.  All the best, Hertz1888 (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

תודה
Thank you for reverting the recent racist revisions made to my userpage by Masasuijen (talk). --Nsaum75 (talk) 02:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you would do the same. It's a tough neighborhood we live in.  What a reservoir of hostility.  That vandal is gone.  Kol tuv, Hertz1888 (talk) 03:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Tmcewen
I blocked for 24 hours for 3rr. That should be enough to discourage them, if not, larger and heavier cluebats are available. Since it's fundamentally a content dispute I don't want to go beyond that. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's hope this is sufficient. Appreciate your help, quick response, & message. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Zionism
I hate getting into fights on that page but someone has to do it. I think perhaps Netanyahu's speech stirred things up or something. I'm really busy at the moment so I think I'll just wait for things to calm down before I have another go at it.

Telaviv1 (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Golan Heights RfC
Sigh, things have been picking up lately on a number of articles. --Nsaum75 (talk) 02:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Care to name any? A lot happening on just one talk page in particular.  Managing that one alone must keep you busy. (I hope you are not about to close off discussion; I have yet to weigh in.) Hertz1888 (talk) 03:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hertz1888, I will be asking for a neutral 3rd party administrator to close off the RfC on Monday. Given then highly contested nature of the debate, and the numerous comments made by IPs, SPAs and possible MEATs/CANVASS, I feel that it will be the best way to handle the closure. Until then, you are more than welcome to weigh in and offer your viewpoints on the situation. Cheers! --Nsaum75 (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will do my best to respond adequately before Monday. "Highly contested" is putting it mildly. If canvassing is involved (as it certainly would appear), it is far from compliance with the "non-partisan" criterion specified at WP:Canvass. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The usual perennial food articles...and several more pertaining to Israel or Zionism (which I have been following but not editing due to the other article)... I'm not closing off discussion yet -- with my latest edits, I'm hoping to persuade people to move towards some sort of balanced agreement or consensus. I am concerned, however, there may be some WP:MEAT. WP:SPA or WP:Canvass going on there. I'll either leave that up to an admin or maybe see if there is concensus on how to include the input from users in those categories. --Nsaum75 (talk) 04:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind, to somewhat counteract those effects, that consensus is not simply a matter of counting votes, and it is acceptable for you to invite those you would expect to bring sensible and/or new insights into the discussion. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have been giving that some thought; while trying to keep my invites fair and balanced, I was tossing around Number 57, Hex, Malik Shabazz, You and maybe Avi (although now that he's WP:BUR he may not want to wade into this pit of fire) --Nsaum75 (talk) 05:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Or like the latest addition to Golan Heights, which uses the term "Zionists" in every instance where the term "Israel" should be used, and includes POV words such as "stubborn"...anyhow... I digress. --Nsaum75 (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

to inside Syria is not correct
Because it means Golan is not Syria. How about: "131,000 people were expelled from Golan" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't argue with me about the wording; it's sourced (and, I suppose, reliably sourced). If you simply say "expelled" it could be to anywhere; hardly helpful to the reader. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

To inside Syria means that Golan is not Syria, this is not neutral point of view.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Supreme_Deliciousness
Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at. Specifically, notations I have made. Thank you. Nsaum75 (talk) 02:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC) (Using )

are you serious?
Thats exactly what he is doing!

"If you disagree, please join the discussion, don't just revert."

There is no new consensus about his claims on the talkpage and he is changing the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyright warning
Hi, the page I referenced was referencing a copyrighted printed work: Rev. Geophys. Vol. 33 Suppl., © 1995 American Geophysical Union. The web page itself was not copyrighted by the AGU. Therefore, my edit was not in violation of the copyright policy. Would you kindly put back my edit? 75.67.80.68 (talk) 09:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You can do that yourself (or at least can introduce material derived from it), provided you comply with the guidelines here. Per my understanding of the WP policies, lengthy excerpts (such as yours) from anywhere, whether under copyright or not, should be avoided.  They may instead be rewritten in your own words, using "multiple referenced sources".  Brief excerpts may be quoted, citing the source (in this case the web page).
 * After six months it was difficult to know what you were referring to and to locate it. Hertz1888 (talk) 12:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

ok show me source
that non-Israeli Jews in Europe and America eat halawa.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * My mother likes it and she lives in England. BTW Hertz could you have a look at the last comments on Zionism and voice an opinion?

Thanks Telaviv1 (talk) 04:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Canton Viaduct
Hertz, regarding your map post on Talk:Canton Viaduct, I can do a much better map tonight and am actually eager to get started. There are two Maps Project conforming styles in particular I think would work, geographic and highway. Examples of my work, each style: Quincy, Massachusetts (no need for the elevation scale, just to show contour and coloring example) and South Bay Interchange (I can easily add street names as in the census map and of course highlight the viaduct with a drawing). The Commons servers are having issues today so you may not be able to view the images - direct links: and. At any rate, which style do you think would be best? Sswonk (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Greetings, Sswonk. Thank you for responding.  I am glad you have the skill and the will.  It looks like it might also be fun to do these maps.  The interchange map's style impresses me as the hands-down more appropriate of the two.  If the rivers are labeled, I think that would take care of the natural landscape aspects sufficiently. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, posting to Viaduct page as well. Sswonk (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Who determines "excessive detail", you? You wrote "deletions per talk page", where is this talk page? Is it my talk page or your talk page? Please send me a link to it so I can understand your position and respond to it. Canton Viaduct
 * Certainly I apply such judgments when editing. Any editor can; it's part of the job.  Sometimes there is a consensus or tacit agreement for the decision, sometimes not.  Let's cool down here, shall we?
 * Generally when an edit summary refers to the talk page, it means the article's talk page. (If the article is on your watch list, as I presume, its talk page changes should show up there too.) See "Geometry" section. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please review my most recent edits regarding the geometry issue. The new geometry pic explains the wedge shape in a less detailed way, thanks. Canton Viaduct
 * Glad to, but as you may have noticed, I don't consider it enough of a wedge shape to be noteworthy. Continuing this discussion at Talk:Canton Viaduct. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Israel lobby in the United States
Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at. Thank you. Nsaum75 (talk) 08:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC) (Using )

hi
ill just start deleting unsourced content from that article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.191.175.243 (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * From WP:VAN: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated."  Also see WP:POINT. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Numerous undos
Are you sure people can still see the blue or green colours if they actually go on Urnaus and Neptune? What's up with these . Ive ask the WP:RD, it's all who is dowloading me those informations. I don't expect any sunlight to go to Uranus and Neptune, so the best term to say the sky is black. How you know Uranus and neptune is not that pitch-black-dark. On Mars I was learnt to not notice the orange color. I've ask the WP:RD, it's what SteveBaker said. I beleive and let's hope SB is doing a good job giving me accurate informations.--69.228.145.50 (talk) 03:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Greetings. As I indicated in the edit summaries, some of your statements are totally incorrect; this casts doubt on the accuracy of your edits generally.  In several places you removed clear existing text and replaced it with confusing, even incoherent or unrelated statements.  Sub-standard English is a large part of the problem.  It might be best if you had someone check your grammar and spelling prior to editing articles, rather than work on Wikipedia alone.


 * Please keep in mind that substantial changes should be sourced, regardless of who is giving you information. Be careful not to add (or substitute) information that represents original research.  Also, you might want to read WP:FIVE as a basic introduction to Wikipedia policies. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

How you explain and. You said my information I add to Uranus and Neptune is not right. The sunlight on Uranus and Neptune is like 50 to 100 feet away from candle, 400 and 900 times dimmer sunlight. O my god, that's alot. It's like total blackness a dark swirling mass is below my feet in orbit. That's like a candle light halfway down my high school campus. I hadn't found any information about uranus and Neptune's total blackness--69.228.145.50 (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not think you have read what I wrote above, or studied the policy pages I linked to. If you intend to edit Wikipedia articles, be prepared to provide reliable sourcing, not information from the reference desk, or your own interpretations.  It is clear you are learning the fundamentals of astronomy for the first time.  I question whether you are ready to contribute constructively to a sophisticated scientific article at this time.  If you insist upon doing so, and go on in the same manner as before, your edits are almost certain to be reverted as unsourced original research or unclearly expressed.  I would advise you instead to postpone editing for now and learn as much as you can about the science, and also to concentrate on improving your command of English. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Then how you know Jupiter's sunlight is 27 times fainter? That's what you fix by, then would that mean Jupiter is 27 times dimmer? Less sunlight, thne the planet is dimmer. Then reflect sunlight just like our rocky planets, they don't make their own light. Same thing as why nighttime on earth is always black, our ground is always black at night. You said the statement suppose to be source, then how you got those informations from?--69.228.145.50 (talk) 02:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It simply comes from the inverse square law. The mean distance of Jupiter from the sun is  approx. 5.2 astronomical units, whose square is 27; a bit more accurate than 25 (based on 5 A.U.) Bear in mind that that is incident light.  The brightness of the planet also depends on its albedo, phase, etc. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Anti-Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States#Requested_move
Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at. Thank you. Nsaum75 (talk) 07:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC) (Using )

Six-day war
Sorry about that, tryed to give the page the one date formant instead of two. will try again later hopfully with out altering direct quotes User:Silverhorse
 * If a few dates differ from the predominant style, correction may be in order. Per the WP:MOS, a global changeover is not acceptable - and besides, why bother? Hertz1888 (talk) 07:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Herzl, about my edits on the six day war article. Firstly, I wrote the bit saying "for its part..." and intended it to refer to Israel. Someone later added "Syria claims..." to it, changing the meaning. I'm changing it back.

Secondly, we have a list of Syrian ceasefire violations followed by a list of Israeli ceasefire violations. Both seem adequately sourced. It seems we can either say "Syria did ...." followed by "Israel did...", which is how it reads now, or we can say "Israel clams that Syria..." followed by "Syria clams that Israel..." This is possibly more accurate. But to list one as fact and the other as a claim is using weasel words and violating NPOV. Steve3742 (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Steve, thanks for the clarification. I'm not sure how much of what Israel did is accurately stated, because so much doubt is cast on Dayan's account within the paragraphs that follow.  This could invalidate an attempt at symmetrical treatment as to claims.  Perhaps the statements are well sourced, perhaps not.  I think I'll sit back and watch how you unscramble the tricky spots. All the best, Hertz1888 (not Herzl). Hertz1888 (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As I read Wikipedia policy, the Israeli defence minister of the time is an adequate source. At least as adequate as an Israeli historian, who is the only source quoted for the Syrian violations. The paragraphs following cast doubt on only one part of Dayan's account, that the motive for the ceasefire violations came from the kibbutz movement. It doesn't cast doubt on the fact that there were Israeli ceasefire violations as described by Dayan. And the only other thing is a comment that he might have had his version coloured by his resignation, a comment so vague and unsourced I'm inclined to remove it. Michael Oren, too, doesn't doubt that there were Israeli ceasefire violations as described by Dayan, he just tries to justify them. I'm minded to remove his comment also - as a statement of his opinion as to justification, it's out of place in a debate over whether they happened or not.


 * Doubt could be cast upon Martin Gilbert's account - he has been economical with the truth in his histories of Israel, though outright fabrication is unlikely. And I'm not doubting his account, merely pointing out that it could be done the other way also. It seems to me that both ceasefire violations are adequately sourced. To re-insert the "claims" bit, there would need to be a serious source contradicting Dayan, and I've never seen one. Plus there are other sources for Israeli ceasefire violations too (just as there are other sources for Syrian ceasefire violations aside from Gibert.)Steve3742 (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Consensus can change
So please, instead of changing edits using rationales in edit summaries only, join in the discussion on the talk page. Please explain there why it is inappropriate to use "proclaimed".  T i a m u t talk 14:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * and you are past 3rr on that page.  nableezy  - 15:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you at least
restore the changes I made to the footnote? They are more accurate than what was there before.  T i a m u t talk 22:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Details can be discussed on the talk page. I don't immediately see anything relevant to specifying the city's location (or not). Hertz1888 (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your peer review
Hey, I just wanted to say "thanks" for all the peer review that you helped me with on the Fresh Pond and Watertown Branch Railroad articles. After my years of TXTing and IMng, my basic grammar feels pretty shoddy. Wikipedia has been one of my outlets over the summer to bring my grammar back up to par. Your edits are very much welcomed, especially as they have given me concrete examples of alternate ways to phrase my statements and diction. I know I'll get there soon. You though, have made the arduous journey a little bit easier. Thanks again. CaribDigita (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What a nice message. Thank you very much.  I'm glad you find my alterations instructive, and that I am able to help you come up to speed.  I am fussy, and chances are that not everybody would appreciate corrections or revisions of their work.  I am happy you approve.


 * Someone—let it be me—should thank you for your industriousness and ingenuity in finding new, well-sourced information to bring into the articles. Best wishes on your journey as a WP contributor, and in general. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Enquiry
I have recently reported User:Nableezy for edit warring on Golan heights. In his defense, Nableezy requested that we "Check with the users involved to see if they felt I was edit warring". Since two of 4 reverts that prompted my report were of your edits (this one and this one), I thought I'd ask you if you felt he was edit warring, or trying to resolve a dispute. I am quite happy to withdraw my report if you think he was not edit warring. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This user will likely say I was, and with Hertz it was two reverts in succession so I wouldn't dispute that.  nableezy  - 00:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * LOTRQ, I have seen outright edit warring, and would call this instance only a borderline case. The larger problem on that article is an ongoing tug-of-war (interrupted for now by page protection), where despite endless discussions little ever seems to get resolved.  User:Nableezy's occasionally overly combative attitude does not help in that regard.  In those discussions cooler heads tend to get shouted down and even vilified.  Please continue to monitor the article and its talk page. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have been overly combative on that page?  nableezy  - 18:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not always, but it's what I experienced yesterday. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Cmon, 2 reverts of the removal of the word settlement is overly combative? Is it more combative than the original removals? I think I have been decent on that page, and while we have encountered each other in less collegial discussions I dont think there is anything on that page that qualifies as overly combative. If there is something that you feel I am out of line with then by all means let me know and I will attempt to correct my behavior. But those 2 reverts do not qualify as combative in my mind.  nableezy  - 18:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't wish to exaggerate. Two reverts, and an unwillingness to concede even the smallest point long enough to consider that what the other person is saying might be reasonable (AGF and all that).  Like what you are doing now, making a big deal out of what might have remained a small matter.  I have refrained from saying it was habitual behavior, or that you edit warred, because I don't think either would be valid.  I hope we can leave it at that, and that this is helpful. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * All good, peace and happiness,  nableezy  - 19:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

443
You changed "all" to "some" access roads. Which access roads exactly are open? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Potjernik (talk • contribs) 14:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What we write must conform with the cited source. It says "several", in the third paragraph.  It doesn't say "all" anywhere that I could find. Hertz1888 (talk) 15:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

National Register of Historic Places listings in Cambridge, Massachusetts
Thanks for the address corrections! If you find more errors, would you be willing to log them at WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/NRIS information issues? This page contains errors that we've found and plan to report to the Register database people. Nyttend (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to do so. That page looks like an essential part of the feedback process. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Content dispute
Moving this here for context. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D  06:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Persistent vandalism, continuing after Last Warning. Series of warnings given on user talk page and user page, preceded initially by a period of remarkable patience by other editors while this user repeatedly depleted and disrupted a series of articles.  Please administer more than a "slap on the wrist", to protect these articles.  It is also likely this user is editing in the same destructive fashion as IP 24.36.128.200. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D  06:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * All invitations for dialog have been ignored. User continues to leave articles in meaningless condition. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you could take this to WP:AN3, or I could try to help you guys out... Master of Puppets  - Call me MoP! :D  06:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever you can do would be welcome. Immediate help needed. This is not an edit war.  The texts are turned into nonsense. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, so, fill me in. I'll do everything I can. Riddle me one thing, though; is this an ethnic dispute? YehudaMedina seems to have some issues with specific ethnic terms. Master of Puppets  - Call me MoP! :D  06:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a major part of it. A pattern of ethnic or national bias is definitely there.  The effect generally is that the removal and substitution of terms leaves the text ungrammatical, confusing, depleted and frequently unreadable.  Hertz1888 (talk) 07:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems like a typical Zionist view. They're commenting out all reference to Arabs or anything that refers to separate Jewish splinter groups and calling it all "Israel". I'll have a word with the editor on their talk page. Master of Puppets  - Call me MoP! :D  07:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I've posted on their talk page. If you're wondering why I haven't blocked; well, I'm a bit softer than most. I like to offer people an extra chance. Hopefully, the user embraces the goodwill. I'll keep an eye on this, thanks for reporting it! :) Cheers, Master of Puppets  - Call me MoP! :D  07:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not as optimistic as you, because I have not seen anything positive to come from this editor, not even an edit summary in response to requests for same, but we will see. Thank you in advance for continuing to monitor. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem! If I'm not around and the user starts to vandalize again (I have to sleep, too), just re-report it at AIV and the administrators there should deal with it. If they tell you it's a content dispute, just refer them to this discussion and explain it; they should follow up. Cheers, Master of Puppets  - Call me MoP! :D  07:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers, and thanks again for your help with this. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.


 * Thank you, Nableezy, for the quick reversion of vandalism. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And to you, Zhang He. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Rubbish
Fleshing out a paragraph with gramatical accuracy is hardly NPOV. I'm sure you'll agree that the irony of your biasness is pretty shameful —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.215.242 (talk) 07:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Harvard Bridge review feedback comments
See User talk:Ruhrfisch for current discussion, and Peer review/Harvard Bridge/archive1 for the review. I'm pointing you at this because I figure you must still be interested. :-) - Denimadept (talk) 23:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Precision of Coords
I note your change to the coords of Nixes Mate and your comment. You're absolutely right, in principle, but I think there's another factor here. Until this year, the USCG Light List showed positions only to tenths of minutes (ie the seconds were always 0,6,12,18,24,30,36,42,48,or 54). This year, for the first time, they show accurate positions. Too precise (as you point out), as they are shown to three decimal places of seconds, about 3mm, which is ridiculous, even for the filament of a lamp in a lighthouse.

Nonetheless, they are the "official" position and I think that that's what we ought to use, foolish precision and all. It's true that it's more precision than Google Maps uses (five decimals of degrees, about one meter), but I doubt that it's actually an additional computational burden anywhere and it saves discussion when a third editor looks at your numbers and "corrects" them again. Thoughts? (Reply here, please, to keep it all together.)

Jim. . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Told you this would happen, didn't I? - Denimadept (talk) 14:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Jim, I'm all for precision when it's accompanied by accuracy. If the location has been officially and accurately surveyed by or for the USCG, we can certainly quote them (and even trust them), preferably in connection with a citation of the source.  I searched the web for a reliable source, and found some widely divergent coordinates; even the official-looking National Park Service "Fact Sheet" appears to be off by several seconds in each direction.  It was hard to know who to trust.  I did not encounter the USCG Light Lists, which are apparently not published on line.  I would be happy to see you restore the USCG coords., milliarcsecond precision and all, and connect the Light List citation (already in the article) to them.  That should, as you say, keep "third" editors from "correcting" them again.  To Mr. Denim:  Are you just ribbing me, or was it something you said about microSmoots?  Please refresh my memory.  Cheers, Hertz1888 (talk) 23:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Denimadept is ribbing me, not you. He's got a point (which is that editors will be tempted to do just as you did, for the same perfectly good reason -- the USGS precision is probably not supported by accuracy), but I've had the issue go both ways, so I like the solution given above.


 * The USCG light lists are on line at http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/LightLists/Lightlists.htm. The Canadian Lists (should your attention stray across the border) are at http://www.notmar.gc.ca/go.php?doc=eng/services/list/index. The Brits like to make money from theirs, they're on line at GBP400 per year. The NPS and other sources are often scaled off of USGS quads which give rise to both the problems of scaling off a paper map and that the quads are most often North American Datum of 1927 which does not give the same position as WGS-84 for most places.


 * As for the citation, you're quite right, it should have been in the infobox. I'm used to putting the Light List cite at the bottom of the lighthouse infobox (rather than using a separate cite for every line item, see for example Long Island Head Light) but forgot it here. I'm not sure that you can actually put the ref tag against the coords because of the form the infobox uses for them.


 * Maybe we should (generally, not just Nixes Mate) add another ref tag, reading something along the lines of "The coordinates given are the official USCG Light List values and are recorded to the precision shown there." Thoughts -- Hertz1888? Denimadept?


 * Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 23:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe a special SUBST which resolves to that string? - Denimadept (talk) 15:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand SUBST in this context, but look at User:Jameslwoodward/Sandbox4 and the related template at User:Jameslwoodward/Sandbox3. Having done that, I'm tempted to create a template just for Light List citations, with just three values -- volume, date, and page, then use that for this and all my other Light List cites. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)  17:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, a template always looks the same when you edit the article, but a subst is translated at "save page" time and never looks like a template again. - Denimadept (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Either way, it beats entering the statement manually in a large number of articles. I think the disclaimer is a good thing to have, based on "better safe than sorry". Hertz1888 (talk) 21:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The difference would be that a template can change things retroactively. - Denimadept (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(Starting indents over) Take a look at Doubling Point Light, please. Your description of SUBST is correct (I think), but it has the problem that ALL the code in the template gets permanently written into the markup text of the article. Try it in a sandbox -- it isn't pretty. The fact that a template can change things retroactively has some problems here, but has the great advantage that when (not "if") the USCG changes the URL of the Light Lists, we can change all the cites by changing the template. Of course, if that happens in 2011, then we won't find the 2009 Light List there, but it won't be at the old URL either. Jim. . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 10:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * New Light List citation template cite uscgll in reference one
 * Use of Coords only in title bar and NRHP box, omitting duplicate in Lighthouse box
 * Precision of coords message (ref three) which I'll templatize (templateize?) if we like it.
 * That looks good! - Denimadept (talk) 14:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Arch Bridge (Bellows Falls)
New article. Suggestions? - Denimadept (talk) 03:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's nicely launched; once again you've done your research well. I had a go at smoothing a few rough spots.  I think it might benefit from a line in the lead para. as to what became of the bridge that "was". Hertz1888 (talk) 04:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I noticed, thanks. I'm currently piling up more stuff in the "talk" page for later perusal and addition. - Denimadept (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you ever. I noticed that.  The current bridge is certainly unremarkable in comparison to the old, at least visually.  Something's been lost.  Good that you are helping commemorate what used to be. Hertz1888 (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Israeli Cuisine
Thanks for helping to edit the material I added to the Israeli cuisine article and fixing the citations. I was having a hard time figuring out how to list a citation used multiple times once in the references. I'd like to work on bringing this article to GA status, and would appreciate your help and suggestions. Chefallen (talk) 15:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome, Chef. I'll stick around.  You are the one doing the heavy lifting developing the article.  Thanks for that.  You might want to look at WP:CITE for tips on formatting citations.  I find the "insert citation" item on the taskbar above the editing window (last icon on the right) can frequently be very useful. Best wishes, Hertz1888 (talk) 16:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Response to Ancient Near East
The reason I took Ancient Egypt out of Ancient near east was simply because Egypt is not in the near east. Given that it did trade a lot with Near eastern societies it would be just the same as saying Ancient Greece is in the Near East. Plus if you checked the Egyptian Empire link i put on the page it cleary and overwhelmingly shows that Egypt was rooted unargueably geographicly in North Eastern Africa all the way down to what is present day Ethiopia. So hypothetically if Ancient Egypt had spread even further west and south that it did and if was still classified as the Ancient Near East. I would think that someone would need some eyeglasses so that they could see that Egypt wasn't located on the Arabian Peninsula but in the nile valley of North and East Africa. Plus if you go to the Nubia link it will also confirm Egypt's cultural link to the nile valley from its inception and not from the Near East as Egypt once was percieved to be. (unsigned)
 * I am not an expert on the subject, but it seems to me that the above reasoning, and the edits, represent your personal synthesis, something that violates the fundamental rules of Wikipedia. Major changes (whether additions or deletions) demand discussion, and all statements should be supported by citations from reliable sources. WP itself (such as via the link you placed) cannot be used as a reliable source.  It would help if you would explain your edits in the Edit summary space.  Also, please sign your posts on talk pages such as this by typing four tildes (~) or clicking on the signature icon above the edit window. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand some of what you are saying but you are at the same time making an oxymoronic statement. By saying that I most quote where I got the info from while saying it must not be from WP, since that is the same way you are getting your info to tell me mine isnt correct. In other words you are saying that because Wikipedia says Egypt is in the Near East it is in the Near East but that I cant use another Wikipedia article to prove otherwise case in point an oxymoron. Those articles i mentioned do have links to the source material at the bottom. Wufei05 (talk) 04:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No oxymorons here. I am not saying your information is incorrect.  As I noted, I am not expert on the topic. I am saying that your behavior in making the edit is in apparent violation, in my opinion, of accepted WP practices and rules.  Please read WP:NOR, WP:FIVE, etc., and above all, explain your edits so other editors can understand your intentions. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Greetings
I was curious, but what do you think of this. The articles nominated for deletion all seem to have something in common. --Nsaum75 (talk) 01:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Greetings to you. Yes, such a "coincidence".  I am wondering if a case can be made for disruptiveness.  I think you've been remarkably civil in response, considering the depth of hostility shown by this user, previously as well as presently.  I see you are already aware of the non-free product cover template; there may be other equally simple means to counteract the tags.  Please don't forget to rescue your essential falafel shop photo. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The Sabra liquor was a local file, however the others are on the commons. In addition, while I cannot argue that the Sabra liquor was in violation of non-free-logo regulations, some of the other ones (like the falafel shop) are a bit of a stretch IMHO. I'll be transferring the commons photos over to en.wiki soon, as soon as I check to see if they're also in-use on he.wiki. --Nsaum75 (talk) 04:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Tel Aviv
Hi Hertz1888! My apologies for not changing the caption for the title image (twice!). Thank you for correcting it. —Ynhockey (Talk) 17:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

However...
Thanks! Nice catch... that one slipped by me. Hiberniantears (talk) 03:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all you do—evidently a lot—and for the nice note. Glad to help; teamwork is a good thing. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Maxwell
Hi Hertz, sorry for changing 'Clerk' to 'Clark' but it was the spelling according to an engineering textbook that is widely referred to. Also, according to The Phenomenological Theory of Linear Viscoelastic Behavior by Tschoeogl NW, the Weichert/Wiechert? model is named after Johann Emil Wiechert and not Dieter Weichert. I am confused, which is right? Unfortunately, all other web sources were identical to (copied from) that wiki page. I hope you are familiar with this topic. Otherwise, sorry for bothering. Please answer on my talk page. Thanks. Zachareth (talk) 00:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ani Medjool
Thanks for your notice. I'm not going to jump in here straight away as I'm still a fairly new admin. I do know that Ani medjool is subject to the WP:ARBPIA remedies and will therefore bring this matter up with an admin who I know to be more familiar with this case. Mjroots (talk) 08:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Much obliged. Hertz1888 (talk) 09:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Raised at ANI. Mjroots (talk) 09:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009
Spread peace and goodwill by adding {{subst:WikiPeace}} to other's talk pages with a friendly message.

Missing coords bot
Per your recent edit summary regarding Mass Ave, you may want to weigh in at User talk:The_Anome. Sswonk (talk) 01:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Golan mountains
Hey, do me a favour and undo the moves ani medjool made on these mountains (renamed them to Arabic even though in English they are recognized by the Hebrew names):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Gharam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Karmeh http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Ahmar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Bani_Ghasan

Thanks! This guy is getting annoying though... he needs to get topic banned. --99.253.230.182 (talk) 04:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I hadn't noticed he renamed those ones too. I saw the Mount Hermon edit, but didn't feel like getting in an edit war with him/her. It would probably help to add a RS, or at least point out an RS, which states which name (the arabic or hebrew) is commonly used in English.  -- nsaum75  ¡שיחת! 04:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The Hebrew is also the English - that's just what I was wondering. If you are sure of that, I will proceed. I trust you have been following the discussion at WP:ANI.  He has been offensive for much too long. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not sure which version is the predominate version used in English, sorry if I didnt make that clear (my eyes are tired)...I've done a google search, but all manner of stuff comes up. Maybe CIA fact pages can help. I've been following the ANI. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 04:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't strain your eyes. This may just have to wait 'til tomorrow.  As soon as a reliable ref. turns up I'll be glad to do the rest.  These pages are sparsely viewed, unlike Mt. Hermon & its ski resort.  Those are fixed, for now, though will bear watching.  All the best to you and editor "99". Hertz1888 (talk) 04:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you by any chance...
related to a Dr. Herzt who practised diving medicine in Haifa in the 1960's?. Thank you, Shir-El   too  18:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no relation. Sounds like that would have been an interesting family connection to have. All the best. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

the truth

 * This user be block but they still give good fact. this be proof. thank you.User_talk:Ashley_kennedy3 Ani medjool (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

excuse me?
am i going to get banned because i think palestine is a coutnry? Palestinians are humans too. Do u smoke weed (talk) 09:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My message was in reference to the Temple Mount edits—as I clearly stated. As for the Dead Sea article, you can click on Palestine and find it defined as a region. The Dead Sea lead more neutrally specifies the three entities bordering the sea.  Hertz1888 (talk) 09:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Greetings
Greetings Hertz1888. You are correct, that are many different kinds of garments, but I don't think anything in the footwear article accurately covers it. I do have a specific beoseon in mind, however. I'll do some further research and let you know what I conclude.

Cheers! -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 10:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I see the footwear has been taken care of for the moment. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 11:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent news! Let's have no more agony of de feet. Hertz1888 (talk) 11:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

You might be interested in this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Supreme_Deliciousness&diff=326630085&oldid=326629811 -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 04:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How comforting it must be to have a monopoly on The Truth, never be mistaken, and know exactly whom to blame for any contradiction. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)