I'm terribly sorry if in my edit your usual constructive work was overlooked. I'm slow at these things, often busy and did make a list of the things to save, which I then began searching to save. Somehow I stuffed up. No excuses. I'll suspend myself for a day. Nishidani ( talk) 20:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Why would you want to remove that section at Talk:Al-Aqsa Mosque? It is not vandalism, even though it is a little peculiar. Debresser ( talk) 00:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Hey there! I'm sure you're aware, but just in case a friendly reminder if you'd like to weigh in at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aptronym. Cheers, JesseRafe ( talk) 18:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Hertz1888! I really appreciate that you took the time and looked over my Santorini edits, but I would really appreciate more if you would go through the article in detail and see that nothing has been deleted, and that the whole Recent volcanism section is under the Geography section. Thank you! Wikipediauser993 ( talk) 00:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)wikipediauser993
Hi,
Thanks for cleaning up my edits in the ESB article. Regarding the floor count, it's difficult to cite a reference adhering to WP:RS standards because ESB's press releases use 102/103 for marketing purposes. The Skyscraper Museum did have an exhibit on the ESB, I also uploaded a cross-section diagram and appended it to the article. I've visited the ESB in person multiple times. When the mooring mast's elevator malfunctioned, visitors got redirected to the stairs, which made it apparent there weren't actual floors in that mast. 06:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaaaaabbbbb111 ( talk • contribs)
In a few minutes -- certainly within the hour -- an automated script will run at the Brighton Beach article, to fill in all of the bare URLs, and to check each for being dead or not. Can you wait with further edits until this is finished? The attempt is to make all citations uniform, and at same time check them for broken links. The check will run in automated fashion, by Bull Rangifer, in response to the article bare URLs tag. Please hold a bit before launching in, thanks. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 04:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to clarify why I made the change in the opening sentence of the article Jewish peoplehood from "the awareness of the underlying unity that makes an individual Jew a part of the Jewish people" to "the awareness of the underlying unity that makes an individual person a part of the Jewish people". My reasoning is that not every person who could be called part of the "Jewish people" is necessarily, according to Judaism or self-identification, a Jew. Take the children of Jewish fathers and Gentile mothers. They may grow up with a very strong sense of Jewish peoplehood, belonging and/or identity, but that doesn't mean they necessarily consider themselves Jews, and unless they undergo formal religious conversion mainstream Judaism would not consider them Jews either. — Cliftonian (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
[1] EEng ( talk) 22:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
After User:Monquaylob edited Mobile phone radiation and health you added some tags about sources, spelling, and grammar. I felt the addition by Monquaylob just had too many factual errors and misleading phrases to remain (not to mention the spelling and grammar detracting from the credibility of the edits), so I reverted the changes. Your changes were reverted too. I wasn't sure if you think the tags are still needed after the revert. Please put them back if you think they are still warranted. Jc3s5h ( talk) 22:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I think this is how I'm supposed to communicate with you about the edits on the ionospheres page. Revert if you really want but I'm trying to be bold and help. It doesn't feel very welcoming. If you don't like me removing the embarrassingly incomplete text maybe you can add it into what I added. Thanks. If I can I'll try remember my log-in for wikipedia which I haven't used for literally years. 108.51.207.160 ( talk) 03:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I've logged in now. Sorry that meant it was harder to communicate. Editing now. Jespley ( talk) 03:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I've added back the hyperlinks but didn't remember how to easily make them embedded hyperlinks. The text now contains my descriptive opening statement, the info on Titan, and a list of some other links. Sorry to leave it kind of a mess. My hope that the article is slightly better now. Jespley ( talk) 04:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Explain to me why you seek to remove the points I made on the BCE/CE debate. Are you an opponent of free speech? By the way, I will put the comments back every time they are deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T A Francis ( talk • contribs) 16:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Report? To whom? With what effect? Just because a debate has been 'archived', does not mean the issue is dead. Additionally, I might just have joined Wikipedia and may only just have noticed the issue. Do you mean to exclude new members from joining in a debate just because it has been archived? T A Francis ( talk) 18:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Calm down? How patronising. And I am not 'new' here having used the Wikipedia since its inception.
Regarding the BC/AD vs BCE/CE issue, please note that the German Wikipedia uses v. Chr / n. Chr (vor Christus, before Christ, and nach Christus (Christi Geburt)) almost exclusively. Whether I need to 'calm down' or not, I shall not contribute to Wikipedia - I get portions of my screen begging for money almost every time I visit the site - whilst it persists in this ridiculous political correctness. But Wikipedia is rather like Kafka's Castle, one cannot find the centre: there is no communication with those who run the show or any guarantee they even acknowledge such messages, let alone justify their position or engage directly in a debate. T A Francis ( talk) 19:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Hertz1888 -- I have just begun to read the article on Pentecost. In the section Pentecost#Old Testament is the following sentence:
I noticed that while this sentence has "Hag haShavuot", the next sentence has both "chag ha-Shavuot" and "chag ha-Katsir". I wondered if the "Hag ha" should be "Chag ha" or "chag ha". Also, part of the first sentence and the first half of the second sentence seem to repeat the same information. I'm wondering if you could take a look at this and make any necessary corrections. Corinne ( talk) 01:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Hertz1888! I have just about finished a thorough copy-edit of Hadrian, and I have a question for you:
In the second paragraph in the section Hadrian#In Rabbinic literature is the following sentence:
I wondered what "a dual verse" meant. In what sense is it dual? Does it mean two adjacent verses, or is it dual in the sense that it conveys two meanings? Do you think the phrase "a dual verse" is clear enough for the average WP reader? Also, do you think the quote is the best possible translation, with those two phrases beginning "to" in succession? Corinne ( talk) 02:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
What vandalism are you claiming I committed? [2] Jeppiz ( talk) 20:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello! I noticed you've been a regular editor on Green Line (MBTA) (thank you for the rewording in the top section) - I recently (within the last hour, in fact) nominated this article for GA status. I wanted to check in and see if you agree that this article would pass muster upon review, or if there is work that could still be done before it would receive GA status. Your comments/expertise is appreciated! Thanks, Garchy ( talk) 17:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Your reference said he was on the Planter in 1635. But there were 2 John Lawrence's at this time. One went to New York. The Lawrence on the Planter was 17 so he must have been the New York one since John of Mass. was born in 1609. The book "New England Marriages Prior to 1700" shows the marriage of John and his first wife, Elizabeth (Cooke) of Groton in 1635 and she died in 1663. His first son was born in March 14, 1636. He could not have arrived, married and have a son by Mar. 1636 if he arrived on the Planter in 1636 or even 1635. the national society of founding daughter vol 6 says he arrived 1630. they do extensive research before they admit members. Mgmcs ( talk) 20:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgmcs2 ( talk • contribs) 05:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
You made a change on Downton Abbey, altering "realize" to "realise". [3] and [4] suggest that was not necessary. I have not undone your edit; you may (or may not) wish to do so. Bazza ( talk) 16:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
The recently created Israel Palestine conflict page is nominated for deletion in connection to the preceding community discussion. You are welcome to express your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel Palestine conflict. GreyShark ( dibra) 14:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
June 23 about 5pm on for the event I mentioned a long time ago. Details once it's all settled. Hope you can make it. E Eng 15:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, just letting you know that for articles on supercentenarians it has been agreed that stating that an individual is the "xxth oldest" requires a RS which states that explicitly, merely looking at a list and copying/calculating their position in that list is inadequate. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 22:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Please do not uncoonditionally remove correct statements by other users such as the moonlight phrase on nautical twilight, but rather send a message. S k a t e b i k e r ( talk) 14:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello Mr. Hertz: I am having a brain fart this morning about dusk. We know that dusk has enough light still left to see things, and is better known as Astronomical Twilight. There was an edit made in the Sunset article, and then corrected by Doenwilliams. (He's no science dummy). However, the sentence still bothers me, and I think it needs to be re-written to clarify. This is how it stands right now: "Sunset is distinct from dusk, which is the time when the sky becomes completely dark (apart from artificial light). This occurs when the Sun is about 18 degrees below the horizon. The period between sunset and dusk is called twilight". The part that bothers me is that it seems to imply that all light is gone at dusk. Can you re-word that sentence in the article so a science dummy like me understands it. The way it is now, seems to contradict, if not eliminate Astronomical twilight. ..... or...I just didn't get enough sleep last night. Also... why does everyone seem to have different opinions about the times of these twilight events? Between reading dusk,dawn, twilight and sunset, I'm more confused than when I started to read them...lol. Can you imagine some grammar school-er trying to make sense of this nonsense? - Thanks - Pocketthis ( talk) 18:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Also, I copied this from the Dusk article:
"The time of dusk can be thought of relative to the time of twilight, which has several alternative technical definitions":
Dusk as the last part of civil twilight ends when the sun is 6 degrees below the horizon in the evening. At this time objects are distinguishable and some stars and planets are visible to the naked eye. Dusk as the last part of nautical twilight ends when the sun is 12 degrees below the horizon in the evening. At this time, objects are no longer distinguishable, and the horizon is no longer visible to the naked eye. Dusk as the last part of astronomical twilight ends when the sun is 18 degrees below the horizon in the evening. At this time the sun no longer illuminates the sky, and thus no longer interferes with astronomical observations.
According to the Dusk article, Dust is the entire period of time during the 3 twilight stages. How can we perpetrate nonsense like this on the public, if dusk is actually just a flash after Astronomical Twilight? I think we owe it to our readers to "get it right", or we should just consider ourselves a joke and quit. All twilight related articles MUST give the same information if we are to be taken seriously. My two cents. We must all get together and decide if we are writing a "novel" or an encyclopedia.
According to Webster: Full Definition of dusk
1 : the darker part of twilight especially at night
This would indicate that astronomical twilight as I originally posted would be correct. So we better get all of our apples in one cart. I certainly have no intention of reverting you, but I also don't want this issue to be "opinion". I want us all to agree on the FACTS what ever they are. Pocketthis ( talk) 18:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
It's a sad day in Wikipedia history when an editor is threatened with being banned for sharing the knowledge that "schvartze" is an offensive, racist slur. I hear my grandparent saying "schvartze" on a regular basis and no matter how hard I try to convince her that it's an offensive, racist slur, she refuses to believe me. There are still people in this world who believe that it isn't offensive and for you and the other reverter of my edits to censor this information (while somehow claiming that I'm the one censoring Wikipedia, however illogical that is), is defending racists regardless of its intent. BenStein69 ( talk) 14:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Just as a heads up, you are both right on this. I assume one of you is from the UK where it is kilometres and the other is from the US where it is kilometers. So I wouldn't get too worked up over this. Happy posting!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanEG ( talk • contribs)
Hey there, I don't know if you still watch the page, but there's a discussion at Talk:Aptronym that you may want to weigh in on. I don't know your whole wikipedia philosophy, but it seemed that you, like me, approached and used consensus in a not always strictly-defined by endless Talk Page debates with disinterested editors way, but more naturally, such as by edit summaries. A user who just happened on the page randomly it seems is now trying to shoehorn in a definition of consensus where one wasn't needed as the article had an ebb and flow of entries. Your input would be appreciated. Cheers, JesseRafe ( talk) 20:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
That was an accident. I went to hit something else and it asked if I wanted to roll back your edit. I thought I hit cancel, but I guess not. I don't even know what the error is. Sorry about that. It's hard editing on phones. Stereorock ( talk) 04:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Josephus edit
|
---|
![]()
Denimadept (
talk) has given you some
popcorn. Popcorn is crunchy goodness, and is wonderfully delicious! I'm just sitting back and watching this. To spread the goodness of popcorn, you can add {{ subst:Popcorn}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message.
|
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stone Zoo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Black bear. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Google defines postulate as suggest or assume the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.
See WP:SAID
- ... reveal, point out, expose, explain, find, note, observe, insist, speculate, surmise, claim, assert, admit, confess, deny, clarify ...
Said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more loaded terms. For example, to write that a person clarified, explained, exposed, found, pointed out, or revealed something can imply that it is true, where a neutral account might preclude such an endorsement. To write that someone insisted, noted, observed, speculated, or surmised can suggest the degree of the speaker's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence when that is unverifiable.
It's okay to use generic terms. Generic terms can make the articles more neutral and accurate. Wikipedia doesn't want to use loaded terms that can introduce bias. I know that this isn't Simple English Wikipedia, but that's no excuse to use a bunch of loaded terms to either suggest that something could be a good idea, bad idea, wrong idea or correct idea in Wikipedia articles. See WP:NPOV. -- Turkeybutt ( talk) 16:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Financial District, Boston is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Financial District, Boston until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylr00 ( talk • contribs) 19:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I noticed you today reverted an edit by user Orasis here - [7]. That user is not allowed to edit that article at all, per the restriction laid down by the arbitration committee in WP:ARBPIA3. I have already notified him of the restriction last month and asked him to edit elsewhere until he reached 500 edits, but he simply ignores this. Enforcement of the restriction is "Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year." - could you provide such a block? Epson Salts ( talk) 23:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Please do not revert my edits before reading the edit summary. There are topographic standards for describing Geographic features. One of these, also given in the Wikiepdia hill article, is that any elevation over 610m above sea level is considered a mountain, even if a low one. Moreover, in this case the mountain has two peaks (see also UIAA definition, divided by a ravine, commonly refereed to as a Saddle (landform). In fact the current ravine is much shallower than the original form because it had been filled in to elevate the peak. And, the reference provided does not use capitals to identify the features as Geographic, but refers to them as topographic features, i.e. western and eastern. Crock81 ( talk) 10:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
I think the caption is an incorrect translation the original from Japanese website. Source caption reads: 選手村でのアベベ親子 選手村でくつろぐアベベ親子。家族思いでも有名だった。Google translates this as: "Abebe parent and child in the athlete village Abebe parents child relaxing at the athletes village. It was famous even for my family thought." Are you ok with me changing the captions in the image and article to "child" until i can find definitive proof of sex? — አቤል ዳዊት ? (Janweh64) ( talk) 23:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
P.S. Thanks for asking – and for the formatting above. Hertz1888 ( talk) 00:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Hahahaha, will do. And Hertz1888, sorry about all the pings and thank you for lending me your talk page. Exits stage left. —አቤል ዳዊት ? (Janweh64) ( talk) 23:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
I see that you undid my revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Twilight&diff=prev&oldid=715873033
I guess it wasn't clear to me what the sentence means, perhaps clarification is needed?
"The dimmest stars ever visible to the naked eye become visible..." If they are ever visble, how can they then become visible? I guess it also doesn't make sense if they are never visible and they become visible. Jray310 ( talk) 03:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Hertz, would you be interested in helping at Wikipedia:Peer review/Balfour Declaration/archive1? I have been working to bring it to FA status, and believe it is getting close. You have contributed greatly to the article over the last decade (you've made 180 edits to it, almost five times the amount of the next most frequent editor). So I was wondering if you'd like to join the effort, to ensure the article is as well written and balanced as possible.
Thanks, Oncenawhile ( talk) 09:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your continued proofreading and copy editing of Public_Garden_(Boston)! I'm hoping to continue making improvements there, and your continued help would be greatly appreciated! -- Nemilar ( talk) 21:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Good to see you around now and then. Question (and pardon me if I ought to know the answer): Have you done either GA or DYK reviews? E Eng 19:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I get the strangest "suggestions" w.r.t local names....and, as you can see, I don't always discover it....Thanks for fixing it! Huldra ( talk) 23:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Samantha Colley's age on Wikipedia page keeps being changed to a much older - incorrect - age. How can this be stopped? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickPatrickPatrick ( talk • contribs) 13:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi. There's a mistake in the second paragraph of lead. It says "...but was predominantly Jewish from roughly 1,000 years before the modern era until the 3rd century of the modern era." when it should say "...but was predominantly Jewish from roughly 1,000 years before the common era until the 3rd century of the common era."
The common era is for the years after AD 1, while the modern era refers to the period starting in the 16th century (after the common era). Could you please fix it? Thanks-- 181.229.95.7 ( talk) 16:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
That's strange, I've never spoken like that, been corrected by an English teacher for that, or write like that. What neck of the woods are you from? My name isnotdave ( talk/ contribs) 13:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
I opened Wikipedia today and found a message from you addressed to "User talk:67.41.241.126". The title of the message appears to be "January 2012", and is basically a scolding for having changed somebody's entry on a Talk page. While I do make occasional changes to Wikipedia encyclopedia pages, about 99% of them are very basic, eg obvious spelling or comma corrections, or the occasional change of several words in order to make a sentence comprehensible, and only changes to an encyclopedia page.
I do read the Talk pages occasionally, but those discussions are about content, and because I go to Wikipedia seeking information, I don't know enough about the content to have anything useful to say. I agree that it would be rude to "correct" somebody's Talk entry and I wouldn't do that intentionally, especially on a topic I know nothing about (Talk:Second Temple).
I'm hoping you can help me understand a couple things about this message? ·Why do you suppose a message from January 2012 showed up today, 9/2/2017? Did I randomly get assigned 67.41.241.126 by my ISP today, maybe? ·Other than write to you, is there something I should do to clarify any misunderstanding?
I'm not very knowledgeable about this, beyond making my occasional basic contributions, but I value Wikipedia as a resource very much, and I started providing minor edits because I feel a responsibility to contribute, at the level I'm able to. Kkved ( talk) 18:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you both for responding. I'm pretty good at doing nothing, so I'll go with my strength here. Kkved ( talk) 16:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
The first versions of the Clarence page have a lot more good detail and plot description, which should be added back. Thanks for pointing me to those in order to check if you had worked on the page early on, and please, jump in (so to speak). Randy Kryn ( talk) 00:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
One thing I have not thought about is whether the sources the problem editor is adding to the same ridiculous edit are actually decent sources (even if not for claims about The Most Important Center Of Learning In World History). Possibly worth a look. --[[User:|JBL]] ( talk) 21:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello, why is it NPOV to list the acts committed by Jewish groups who wanted independence from the UK as 'terrorism'? There are a number of scholarly books that use the term, and the actions of the various groups involved clearly meet the definition of the word terrorism. Please reply on my page, thank you!-- Moosh88 ( talk) 01:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm terribly sorry if in my edit your usual constructive work was overlooked. I'm slow at these things, often busy and did make a list of the things to save, which I then began searching to save. Somehow I stuffed up. No excuses. I'll suspend myself for a day. Nishidani ( talk) 20:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Why would you want to remove that section at Talk:Al-Aqsa Mosque? It is not vandalism, even though it is a little peculiar. Debresser ( talk) 00:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Hey there! I'm sure you're aware, but just in case a friendly reminder if you'd like to weigh in at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aptronym. Cheers, JesseRafe ( talk) 18:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Hertz1888! I really appreciate that you took the time and looked over my Santorini edits, but I would really appreciate more if you would go through the article in detail and see that nothing has been deleted, and that the whole Recent volcanism section is under the Geography section. Thank you! Wikipediauser993 ( talk) 00:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)wikipediauser993
Hi,
Thanks for cleaning up my edits in the ESB article. Regarding the floor count, it's difficult to cite a reference adhering to WP:RS standards because ESB's press releases use 102/103 for marketing purposes. The Skyscraper Museum did have an exhibit on the ESB, I also uploaded a cross-section diagram and appended it to the article. I've visited the ESB in person multiple times. When the mooring mast's elevator malfunctioned, visitors got redirected to the stairs, which made it apparent there weren't actual floors in that mast. 06:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaaaaabbbbb111 ( talk • contribs)
In a few minutes -- certainly within the hour -- an automated script will run at the Brighton Beach article, to fill in all of the bare URLs, and to check each for being dead or not. Can you wait with further edits until this is finished? The attempt is to make all citations uniform, and at same time check them for broken links. The check will run in automated fashion, by Bull Rangifer, in response to the article bare URLs tag. Please hold a bit before launching in, thanks. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 04:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to clarify why I made the change in the opening sentence of the article Jewish peoplehood from "the awareness of the underlying unity that makes an individual Jew a part of the Jewish people" to "the awareness of the underlying unity that makes an individual person a part of the Jewish people". My reasoning is that not every person who could be called part of the "Jewish people" is necessarily, according to Judaism or self-identification, a Jew. Take the children of Jewish fathers and Gentile mothers. They may grow up with a very strong sense of Jewish peoplehood, belonging and/or identity, but that doesn't mean they necessarily consider themselves Jews, and unless they undergo formal religious conversion mainstream Judaism would not consider them Jews either. — Cliftonian (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
[1] EEng ( talk) 22:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
After User:Monquaylob edited Mobile phone radiation and health you added some tags about sources, spelling, and grammar. I felt the addition by Monquaylob just had too many factual errors and misleading phrases to remain (not to mention the spelling and grammar detracting from the credibility of the edits), so I reverted the changes. Your changes were reverted too. I wasn't sure if you think the tags are still needed after the revert. Please put them back if you think they are still warranted. Jc3s5h ( talk) 22:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I think this is how I'm supposed to communicate with you about the edits on the ionospheres page. Revert if you really want but I'm trying to be bold and help. It doesn't feel very welcoming. If you don't like me removing the embarrassingly incomplete text maybe you can add it into what I added. Thanks. If I can I'll try remember my log-in for wikipedia which I haven't used for literally years. 108.51.207.160 ( talk) 03:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I've logged in now. Sorry that meant it was harder to communicate. Editing now. Jespley ( talk) 03:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I've added back the hyperlinks but didn't remember how to easily make them embedded hyperlinks. The text now contains my descriptive opening statement, the info on Titan, and a list of some other links. Sorry to leave it kind of a mess. My hope that the article is slightly better now. Jespley ( talk) 04:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Explain to me why you seek to remove the points I made on the BCE/CE debate. Are you an opponent of free speech? By the way, I will put the comments back every time they are deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T A Francis ( talk • contribs) 16:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Report? To whom? With what effect? Just because a debate has been 'archived', does not mean the issue is dead. Additionally, I might just have joined Wikipedia and may only just have noticed the issue. Do you mean to exclude new members from joining in a debate just because it has been archived? T A Francis ( talk) 18:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Calm down? How patronising. And I am not 'new' here having used the Wikipedia since its inception.
Regarding the BC/AD vs BCE/CE issue, please note that the German Wikipedia uses v. Chr / n. Chr (vor Christus, before Christ, and nach Christus (Christi Geburt)) almost exclusively. Whether I need to 'calm down' or not, I shall not contribute to Wikipedia - I get portions of my screen begging for money almost every time I visit the site - whilst it persists in this ridiculous political correctness. But Wikipedia is rather like Kafka's Castle, one cannot find the centre: there is no communication with those who run the show or any guarantee they even acknowledge such messages, let alone justify their position or engage directly in a debate. T A Francis ( talk) 19:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Hertz1888 -- I have just begun to read the article on Pentecost. In the section Pentecost#Old Testament is the following sentence:
I noticed that while this sentence has "Hag haShavuot", the next sentence has both "chag ha-Shavuot" and "chag ha-Katsir". I wondered if the "Hag ha" should be "Chag ha" or "chag ha". Also, part of the first sentence and the first half of the second sentence seem to repeat the same information. I'm wondering if you could take a look at this and make any necessary corrections. Corinne ( talk) 01:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Hertz1888! I have just about finished a thorough copy-edit of Hadrian, and I have a question for you:
In the second paragraph in the section Hadrian#In Rabbinic literature is the following sentence:
I wondered what "a dual verse" meant. In what sense is it dual? Does it mean two adjacent verses, or is it dual in the sense that it conveys two meanings? Do you think the phrase "a dual verse" is clear enough for the average WP reader? Also, do you think the quote is the best possible translation, with those two phrases beginning "to" in succession? Corinne ( talk) 02:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
What vandalism are you claiming I committed? [2] Jeppiz ( talk) 20:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello! I noticed you've been a regular editor on Green Line (MBTA) (thank you for the rewording in the top section) - I recently (within the last hour, in fact) nominated this article for GA status. I wanted to check in and see if you agree that this article would pass muster upon review, or if there is work that could still be done before it would receive GA status. Your comments/expertise is appreciated! Thanks, Garchy ( talk) 17:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Your reference said he was on the Planter in 1635. But there were 2 John Lawrence's at this time. One went to New York. The Lawrence on the Planter was 17 so he must have been the New York one since John of Mass. was born in 1609. The book "New England Marriages Prior to 1700" shows the marriage of John and his first wife, Elizabeth (Cooke) of Groton in 1635 and she died in 1663. His first son was born in March 14, 1636. He could not have arrived, married and have a son by Mar. 1636 if he arrived on the Planter in 1636 or even 1635. the national society of founding daughter vol 6 says he arrived 1630. they do extensive research before they admit members. Mgmcs ( talk) 20:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgmcs2 ( talk • contribs) 05:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
You made a change on Downton Abbey, altering "realize" to "realise". [3] and [4] suggest that was not necessary. I have not undone your edit; you may (or may not) wish to do so. Bazza ( talk) 16:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
The recently created Israel Palestine conflict page is nominated for deletion in connection to the preceding community discussion. You are welcome to express your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel Palestine conflict. GreyShark ( dibra) 14:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
June 23 about 5pm on for the event I mentioned a long time ago. Details once it's all settled. Hope you can make it. E Eng 15:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, just letting you know that for articles on supercentenarians it has been agreed that stating that an individual is the "xxth oldest" requires a RS which states that explicitly, merely looking at a list and copying/calculating their position in that list is inadequate. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 22:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Please do not uncoonditionally remove correct statements by other users such as the moonlight phrase on nautical twilight, but rather send a message. S k a t e b i k e r ( talk) 14:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello Mr. Hertz: I am having a brain fart this morning about dusk. We know that dusk has enough light still left to see things, and is better known as Astronomical Twilight. There was an edit made in the Sunset article, and then corrected by Doenwilliams. (He's no science dummy). However, the sentence still bothers me, and I think it needs to be re-written to clarify. This is how it stands right now: "Sunset is distinct from dusk, which is the time when the sky becomes completely dark (apart from artificial light). This occurs when the Sun is about 18 degrees below the horizon. The period between sunset and dusk is called twilight". The part that bothers me is that it seems to imply that all light is gone at dusk. Can you re-word that sentence in the article so a science dummy like me understands it. The way it is now, seems to contradict, if not eliminate Astronomical twilight. ..... or...I just didn't get enough sleep last night. Also... why does everyone seem to have different opinions about the times of these twilight events? Between reading dusk,dawn, twilight and sunset, I'm more confused than when I started to read them...lol. Can you imagine some grammar school-er trying to make sense of this nonsense? - Thanks - Pocketthis ( talk) 18:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Also, I copied this from the Dusk article:
"The time of dusk can be thought of relative to the time of twilight, which has several alternative technical definitions":
Dusk as the last part of civil twilight ends when the sun is 6 degrees below the horizon in the evening. At this time objects are distinguishable and some stars and planets are visible to the naked eye. Dusk as the last part of nautical twilight ends when the sun is 12 degrees below the horizon in the evening. At this time, objects are no longer distinguishable, and the horizon is no longer visible to the naked eye. Dusk as the last part of astronomical twilight ends when the sun is 18 degrees below the horizon in the evening. At this time the sun no longer illuminates the sky, and thus no longer interferes with astronomical observations.
According to the Dusk article, Dust is the entire period of time during the 3 twilight stages. How can we perpetrate nonsense like this on the public, if dusk is actually just a flash after Astronomical Twilight? I think we owe it to our readers to "get it right", or we should just consider ourselves a joke and quit. All twilight related articles MUST give the same information if we are to be taken seriously. My two cents. We must all get together and decide if we are writing a "novel" or an encyclopedia.
According to Webster: Full Definition of dusk
1 : the darker part of twilight especially at night
This would indicate that astronomical twilight as I originally posted would be correct. So we better get all of our apples in one cart. I certainly have no intention of reverting you, but I also don't want this issue to be "opinion". I want us all to agree on the FACTS what ever they are. Pocketthis ( talk) 18:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
It's a sad day in Wikipedia history when an editor is threatened with being banned for sharing the knowledge that "schvartze" is an offensive, racist slur. I hear my grandparent saying "schvartze" on a regular basis and no matter how hard I try to convince her that it's an offensive, racist slur, she refuses to believe me. There are still people in this world who believe that it isn't offensive and for you and the other reverter of my edits to censor this information (while somehow claiming that I'm the one censoring Wikipedia, however illogical that is), is defending racists regardless of its intent. BenStein69 ( talk) 14:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Just as a heads up, you are both right on this. I assume one of you is from the UK where it is kilometres and the other is from the US where it is kilometers. So I wouldn't get too worked up over this. Happy posting!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanEG ( talk • contribs)
Hey there, I don't know if you still watch the page, but there's a discussion at Talk:Aptronym that you may want to weigh in on. I don't know your whole wikipedia philosophy, but it seemed that you, like me, approached and used consensus in a not always strictly-defined by endless Talk Page debates with disinterested editors way, but more naturally, such as by edit summaries. A user who just happened on the page randomly it seems is now trying to shoehorn in a definition of consensus where one wasn't needed as the article had an ebb and flow of entries. Your input would be appreciated. Cheers, JesseRafe ( talk) 20:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
That was an accident. I went to hit something else and it asked if I wanted to roll back your edit. I thought I hit cancel, but I guess not. I don't even know what the error is. Sorry about that. It's hard editing on phones. Stereorock ( talk) 04:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Josephus edit
|
---|
![]()
Denimadept (
talk) has given you some
popcorn. Popcorn is crunchy goodness, and is wonderfully delicious! I'm just sitting back and watching this. To spread the goodness of popcorn, you can add {{ subst:Popcorn}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message.
|
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stone Zoo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Black bear. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Google defines postulate as suggest or assume the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.
See WP:SAID
- ... reveal, point out, expose, explain, find, note, observe, insist, speculate, surmise, claim, assert, admit, confess, deny, clarify ...
Said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more loaded terms. For example, to write that a person clarified, explained, exposed, found, pointed out, or revealed something can imply that it is true, where a neutral account might preclude such an endorsement. To write that someone insisted, noted, observed, speculated, or surmised can suggest the degree of the speaker's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence when that is unverifiable.
It's okay to use generic terms. Generic terms can make the articles more neutral and accurate. Wikipedia doesn't want to use loaded terms that can introduce bias. I know that this isn't Simple English Wikipedia, but that's no excuse to use a bunch of loaded terms to either suggest that something could be a good idea, bad idea, wrong idea or correct idea in Wikipedia articles. See WP:NPOV. -- Turkeybutt ( talk) 16:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Financial District, Boston is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Financial District, Boston until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylr00 ( talk • contribs) 19:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I noticed you today reverted an edit by user Orasis here - [7]. That user is not allowed to edit that article at all, per the restriction laid down by the arbitration committee in WP:ARBPIA3. I have already notified him of the restriction last month and asked him to edit elsewhere until he reached 500 edits, but he simply ignores this. Enforcement of the restriction is "Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year." - could you provide such a block? Epson Salts ( talk) 23:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Please do not revert my edits before reading the edit summary. There are topographic standards for describing Geographic features. One of these, also given in the Wikiepdia hill article, is that any elevation over 610m above sea level is considered a mountain, even if a low one. Moreover, in this case the mountain has two peaks (see also UIAA definition, divided by a ravine, commonly refereed to as a Saddle (landform). In fact the current ravine is much shallower than the original form because it had been filled in to elevate the peak. And, the reference provided does not use capitals to identify the features as Geographic, but refers to them as topographic features, i.e. western and eastern. Crock81 ( talk) 10:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
I think the caption is an incorrect translation the original from Japanese website. Source caption reads: 選手村でのアベベ親子 選手村でくつろぐアベベ親子。家族思いでも有名だった。Google translates this as: "Abebe parent and child in the athlete village Abebe parents child relaxing at the athletes village. It was famous even for my family thought." Are you ok with me changing the captions in the image and article to "child" until i can find definitive proof of sex? — አቤል ዳዊት ? (Janweh64) ( talk) 23:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
P.S. Thanks for asking – and for the formatting above. Hertz1888 ( talk) 00:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Hahahaha, will do. And Hertz1888, sorry about all the pings and thank you for lending me your talk page. Exits stage left. —አቤል ዳዊት ? (Janweh64) ( talk) 23:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
I see that you undid my revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Twilight&diff=prev&oldid=715873033
I guess it wasn't clear to me what the sentence means, perhaps clarification is needed?
"The dimmest stars ever visible to the naked eye become visible..." If they are ever visble, how can they then become visible? I guess it also doesn't make sense if they are never visible and they become visible. Jray310 ( talk) 03:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Hertz, would you be interested in helping at Wikipedia:Peer review/Balfour Declaration/archive1? I have been working to bring it to FA status, and believe it is getting close. You have contributed greatly to the article over the last decade (you've made 180 edits to it, almost five times the amount of the next most frequent editor). So I was wondering if you'd like to join the effort, to ensure the article is as well written and balanced as possible.
Thanks, Oncenawhile ( talk) 09:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your continued proofreading and copy editing of Public_Garden_(Boston)! I'm hoping to continue making improvements there, and your continued help would be greatly appreciated! -- Nemilar ( talk) 21:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Good to see you around now and then. Question (and pardon me if I ought to know the answer): Have you done either GA or DYK reviews? E Eng 19:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I get the strangest "suggestions" w.r.t local names....and, as you can see, I don't always discover it....Thanks for fixing it! Huldra ( talk) 23:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Samantha Colley's age on Wikipedia page keeps being changed to a much older - incorrect - age. How can this be stopped? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickPatrickPatrick ( talk • contribs) 13:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi. There's a mistake in the second paragraph of lead. It says "...but was predominantly Jewish from roughly 1,000 years before the modern era until the 3rd century of the modern era." when it should say "...but was predominantly Jewish from roughly 1,000 years before the common era until the 3rd century of the common era."
The common era is for the years after AD 1, while the modern era refers to the period starting in the 16th century (after the common era). Could you please fix it? Thanks-- 181.229.95.7 ( talk) 16:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
That's strange, I've never spoken like that, been corrected by an English teacher for that, or write like that. What neck of the woods are you from? My name isnotdave ( talk/ contribs) 13:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
I opened Wikipedia today and found a message from you addressed to "User talk:67.41.241.126". The title of the message appears to be "January 2012", and is basically a scolding for having changed somebody's entry on a Talk page. While I do make occasional changes to Wikipedia encyclopedia pages, about 99% of them are very basic, eg obvious spelling or comma corrections, or the occasional change of several words in order to make a sentence comprehensible, and only changes to an encyclopedia page.
I do read the Talk pages occasionally, but those discussions are about content, and because I go to Wikipedia seeking information, I don't know enough about the content to have anything useful to say. I agree that it would be rude to "correct" somebody's Talk entry and I wouldn't do that intentionally, especially on a topic I know nothing about (Talk:Second Temple).
I'm hoping you can help me understand a couple things about this message? ·Why do you suppose a message from January 2012 showed up today, 9/2/2017? Did I randomly get assigned 67.41.241.126 by my ISP today, maybe? ·Other than write to you, is there something I should do to clarify any misunderstanding?
I'm not very knowledgeable about this, beyond making my occasional basic contributions, but I value Wikipedia as a resource very much, and I started providing minor edits because I feel a responsibility to contribute, at the level I'm able to. Kkved ( talk) 18:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you both for responding. I'm pretty good at doing nothing, so I'll go with my strength here. Kkved ( talk) 16:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
The first versions of the Clarence page have a lot more good detail and plot description, which should be added back. Thanks for pointing me to those in order to check if you had worked on the page early on, and please, jump in (so to speak). Randy Kryn ( talk) 00:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
One thing I have not thought about is whether the sources the problem editor is adding to the same ridiculous edit are actually decent sources (even if not for claims about The Most Important Center Of Learning In World History). Possibly worth a look. --[[User:|JBL]] ( talk) 21:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello, why is it NPOV to list the acts committed by Jewish groups who wanted independence from the UK as 'terrorism'? There are a number of scholarly books that use the term, and the actions of the various groups involved clearly meet the definition of the word terrorism. Please reply on my page, thank you!-- Moosh88 ( talk) 01:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)