User talk:Hertz1888

——NOTICE——

Responses will be given on this page to all inquiries left on this page.
If you would like me to respond on your talk page, please say so explicitly.
Please post new messages at the bottom of the page.

/Archive 1

Boston Marathon

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

Welcome!

Hello Hertz1888! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC) Getting started Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Bostachusetts' Sailors and Soldiers Monument

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

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

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

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

Armenian quarter

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

September, 2007

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

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

[Examples removed lest they be mistaken for real citations]

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

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

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

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

It's a Wonderful Life and Harry Bailey

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

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

It's a Wonderful Life

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

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

Re: American Revolutionary War

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

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

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

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

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

Battle of Bunker Hill

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

Appelbaum

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

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

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

Western Wall

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

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

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

Thanks - Astronomical thought for the day

I'm going to quote this from Talk:Solar_radiation and use it in my physics class today:

“Astronomical numbers are so mind-boggling, it's hard to imagine how any human can handle them. Manipulate, yes—but truly grasp? And yet, as far as we know, human consciousness is the best resource the universe has for being aware of itself!” Hertz1888 04:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I happened upon your comment after reading up on Ackermann’s function and Graham’s number, so pure math had me primed for this sentiment.

--Thanks! Dc3 (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Invention of Radio

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

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

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

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

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

Rollback

Hi Hertz1888. I just gave you the rollback feature because you seem trustworthy and use the undo feature frequently with good results. I thought you might be able to use this feature. Please read the link which explains when to use rollback and not to and let me know what you think.

Regards, dvdrw 22:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

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

American Revolutionary War

Will fix the formatting mistakes straight away. Sorry for the inconvenience. Jordan ^Contribs 13:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Spoonerism comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hebron

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

I'm thinking in the long term, and would appreciate it if chaps like yourself mull the problem, without haste, to see if we can come up with some ideas about shortening the last section. In any case, in approaching big things like this, my rule is the Latin dictum, festina lent(isssim)e. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 14:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clean-up in the meantime. I'm aware that a final recension before applying for some status upgrade is a close review of all punctuation and citational forms, notes, etc., so that they all observe the same criteria. I've neglected this, culpably, being too focused on other matters. Nishidani (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts too. It will certainly be festina lentissime on my part at this time, as my attention is so divided, but I'll definitely give the matter some thought asap. Hertz1888 (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

A couple of months at a minimum's my sort of time-scale (hope my ticker keeps up for that long!) Nishidani (talk) 15:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Re Eight Below

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

Re Greater Israel

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

Tiberias

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

Thanks

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

Restored images

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

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

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

Marathon

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

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

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

Boston Collage

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

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

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

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

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

		The Original Barnstar
		For just being you day after day Happydude 69ya (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)