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. < eleland/ talk edits> 21:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
Regards Martin Hogbin ( talk) 14:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
re: Western Wall, [1] 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)
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.
Will fix the formatting mistakes straight away. Sorry for the inconvenience. Jor dan Contribs 13:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
See talk page on Hebron... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 09:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
Thanks Joseolgon ( talk) 00:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
{{helpme}}
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)
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'48 ( talk) 09:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Thank you for all your help there. Cheers.-- Jacurek ( talk) 22:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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#Newetowne_vs._Newtowne.
Thanks,
BCorr|
Брайен
23:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
The better place to report would be at 3RR ( Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring). Spencer T♦ C 19:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
...for correcting me here. I'll put the DeLorean back where I found it! haz ( talk) 08:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
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 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.
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)
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)
-- 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.
Thought I would pop by to say hello and thanks for all the good work.
Jonathan Telaviv1 ( talk) 07:40, 8 February 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)
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)
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)
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)
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? [2] Bus stop ( talk) 16:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Your recent edit summary 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)
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)
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)
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)
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. < eleland/ talk edits> 21:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
Regards Martin Hogbin ( talk) 14:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
re: Western Wall, [1] 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)
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.
Will fix the formatting mistakes straight away. Sorry for the inconvenience. Jor dan Contribs 13:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
See talk page on Hebron... Ashley kennedy3 ( talk) 09:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
Thanks Joseolgon ( talk) 00:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
{{helpme}}
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)
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'48 ( talk) 09:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Thank you for all your help there. Cheers.-- Jacurek ( talk) 22:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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#Newetowne_vs._Newtowne.
Thanks,
BCorr|
Брайен
23:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
The better place to report would be at 3RR ( Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring). Spencer T♦ C 19:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
...for correcting me here. I'll put the DeLorean back where I found it! haz ( talk) 08:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
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 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.
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)
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)
-- 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.
Thought I would pop by to say hello and thanks for all the good work.
Jonathan Telaviv1 ( talk) 07:40, 8 February 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)
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)
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)
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)
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? [2] Bus stop ( talk) 16:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Your recent edit summary 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)
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)
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)
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)