User talk:Hertz1888/Archive 6

Rand Estate photo on Porter Sq article

Hello again Hertz1888 and thanks for correcting the caption to the photo I added to the Porter Sq. article. I wonder if I can ask you for some assistance. I've just received notice that I haven't appropriately identified the license for the image so that it's usable on Wikipedia. I believe it should be in the public domain, but I'm not sure how to determine this. And if it is, I'm not sure how to properly indicate that. The photo was from the CHS website: http://www.cambridgehistory.org/imagecollection/rand-estate-1899-massachusetts-avenue

Would you have a moment to take a look and let me know if you think it's usable? And, if so, could you let me know how to fix the info associated with the uploaded file? Thanks,--Vistawhite (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Greetings. Happy to help. See references to 1923 here. It's probably just a matter of going back to where you uploaded the file and citing the antiquity of the photo as a justification for free use. Please let me know if that succeeds. If not, I'll assist in digging deeper. Cheers, Hertz1888 (talk) 22:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Jerusalem

Hi, I would appreciate it if you'll add your opinion here: Talk:Jerusalem#Better wording#We are running out of bits. --MeUser42 (talk) 20:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI discussion

A discussion on an issue with which you have been involved is at WP:ANI#Id420x. Dougweller (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Anandamide

Dear Mr Hertz, we deleted the pictures as what is written is not accurate. You can contact me (Lumir Hanus) or prof. Raphael Mechoulam just to prove that the changes are from us. Thank you. (unsigned, 10 October 2012)

Golden Gate

Hello. I do not understand why you have removed my video of the Golden gate from the Golden Gate page in Jerusalem. Please reply to me at my Talk my talk page

Dear Hertz1888. First, I do not understand your comments about the quality of my videos. i checked them on Wikimedia and they work perfect. I believe that Videos are much better way to show places in Jerusalem than just Pictures, and that is why I am contributing my works to Wikipedia. I am constantly receiving comment and email from people that watch my videos that NOW they can understand the excitement of visiting Jerusalem and that is thanks to my videos.

As for the link to my site from the Video File. I believe this is Wikipedia way to say thank you for people contribution. Each page at Wikipedia has links directly to other sites that have contributed information or pictures. There are sites that share pictures from Jerusalem (and other places in the world) and they have links directly to their site where they make money from Advertising and also selling tours in Jerusalem (and other places in the world). At my site there is NO solicitation for business and NO advertising. the only think is that people can register so I can send them emails when I upload a new video. I AM MAKING NO MONEY FROM MY SITE!!!! and that is why people from all over the world follow me!!!

I hope this will convince you to restore my links.

Thank you for your cooperation. Eran200 —Preceding undated comment added 10:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Reply given on your talk page. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Harvard hullabaloo

It's a pleasure working with you, whoever you are.

Yours in urinary continence [1], EEng (talk) 03:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

That's a "pisher" of a closing, but I know what you mean, as we fight the battles of the statue together. My compliments on your spirited overhaul of the article. It's a joy hearing from you. I don't know what I was doing up at 3 am the other morning (maybe I'm keeping Alaska time), but it was funny you should ask, when you were still up at 5 or 6. This editing business can get to be a major preoccupation, can't it.

The question still remains of which is the truer aspirational hub of the universe, Harvard or the Boston Marathon finish line; so many seem intent on reaching them. Cheers for now, Hertz1888 (talk) 05:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

as we fight the battles of the statue together

In the name of the President and Fellows, the nine River Houses, and the ghost of Charles W. Eliot, please keep your voice down! We can't afford any more do-gooders sniffing around the Harvard/Trilateral/Masonic conspiracy! [2] And no more using the secret handshake when people are watching, or I'll report you to the Grand Exalted Poobah. EEng (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC) P.S. Only because I suspect you'd care, I'm sorry to share this news of dark days. [3][4]

Understood. Oh, man, I'm worried. In the name of all those august parties, mum's the word <laughing>. Samuel James Bridge... he isn't the one they called "the rude bridge", is he? Hertz1888 (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Um... I don't get it. Huh? EEng (talk) 07:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

This may explain the play on words, also in connection with another work by French (a French connection, as it were). Hertz1888 (talk) 07:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

My ignorance is truly appalling. Nonetheless the fact that you had to point me to the answer led to a happy discovery. Notice who gave the dedication speech. Concord_Hymn#Legacy So I thought... hmmmm. [5] That's how these things happen.

I wonder if you've ever taken a look at another article I've done a lot of work on. I'd be interested in your opinion.

EEng (talk) 10:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Adams, Lowell, Kirkland, Quincy, Leverett, Mather, Dunster, Winthrop, Eliot -- all named for presidents. But why is there no Hoar?

Passing now out of the Yard northward, through the Class-of-Something Gate...

...we come to Talk:Memorial Hall (Harvard University)#Merge from Sanders Theater. EEng (talk) 02:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Beta blocker notice

Your fellow editor may need to use beta blockers due to stress on the heart while awaiting your interesting news about the North Yard "Delta." EEng (talk)

Standby, please. Help is on the way! Hertz1888 (talk) 00:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Hee, hee. Gave you start for a second there, didn't I? The DAR material -- very interesting indeed. EEng (talk) 03:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Those darn blank lines!

I noticed you removed my blank lines. I tried repeatedly to get that text to allign itself with the photos! I have found this bug in WP before as the results of editing sections are not the same as after you leave the article and come back! Wow! I just asked the same question how to fix this at the Teahouse and returned to find it fixed. grrrrrrrr. Not at you but at the system causing me grief. Now the Teahouse helpers will be looking at the link to that section text wondering "what is this idiot talking about?". LOL Thanks! 174.118.142.187 (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome. We all learn new editing tricks as we go along; all too often, it seems, with an "I wish I had known that sooner" reaction. (WP imitates life). Cheers. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

P.S. {{clr}} stands for clear, and can be useful in such a situation. Also, sometimes it helps to preview the entire page before saving an edit involving layout (among other things). Hertz1888 (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Jerusalem". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 19 November 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 20:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Dead Sea basin countries

Hi,

I edited the 'Dead Sea' article to reflect the fact that the basin of the sea lies within the territory of three political entities (whether recognized as countries or not). Palestine may not be a recognized as a country but it is a fact that part of the Dead Sea's basin lies within the West Bank. Not including any information about this leads to the impression that all of the basin lies either within Jordan or within Israel, which is false. This is not a matter of politics but of geographical accuracy. How do you suggest we amend this?

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.241.130.177 (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The information is included in the lead paragraph, where the three entities are mentioned. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

book of Katz

Please look on the talk page for a discussion before reverting. Zero^talk 07:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Jerusalem, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:TransporterMan (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Plaut's skepticism about the Nakba concept

I wonder if "skepticism about the Nakba concept" is the best definition (on steven Plaut's page) of the following set of "jokes", all from the israelnews op ed piece by Plaut titled Happy Nakba Day (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/11654):

• One, two, three, MANY Nakbas!
• A little Nakba never hurt anyone!
• Nakba-ize unto Victory!
• My professor went to Nakba Day and all I got was this lousy t-shirt.
• Remove the illegal Palestinian settlements sitting on Jewish land!
• Two-state solution: One for the Jews and One for the Kurds, but none for the Arabs who live down the Lane
• Help the Palestinian prisoners maintain their hunger strike!
• Don’t wall them out ­ Fence them In!
• When this drone is a rockin’, we’ll come a-knockin’!!
• We switched your 72 virgins with a 72 year -old virgin!

Is this just "skepticism about the concept" or an extreme demonstration of an anti-Palestinian hate text, with much pride of his own "inventions" ? Would'nt "anti-Palestinian" describe better this set of "jokes" ? Maybe you could suggest a better word than "skepticism" for that text or otherwise change that definition by adding "non-skeptical" citations such as the ones in bold above ? Thanks ! Rastiniak (talk) 05:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)rastiniak

An example? Your soapbox is showing. You seem to be intent on proving a point. What is reliably sourced is what counts in Wikipedia, not opinions about what the sources demonstrate. Possibly even the description as "skepticism" is not mild enough, but it is an effort to steer the wording toward neutrality. I suppose the op ed might be described neutrally as satire without stretching a point. Please use the article's talk page for further discussions, so that others might take part if they so choose. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It is indeed anti-Palestinian. I reverted to the right version. There is a talk page where you can get a consensus but I strongly oppose to your use of "Nakba concept". Pluto2012 (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Please use the article's own talk page for further discussion rather than continuing here. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

When you're not arguing date conventions...

I'm guessing you're more familiar with copyright issues than I am, so I hope you won't mind my suggesting this task. The image here [6] might go great with the images of the statue and Hoar already present. If you agree, then can you work through any copyright issues related to an upload to Commons? This [7] implies copyright, but the image's presence on usstampgallery.com seems to imply no copyright, assuming usstampgallery isn't a USPS site (though it's hard to tell). I don't see use in the statue article as coming under fair use. EEng (talk) 17:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I will try to look into this very soon, and hope you are not in a rush. I am a bit backlogged (& have, for example, yet to respond to your query re Phineas Gage). Have you seen this resource? Looks like a great source of information & at least one quotable quote (Craven's). On the trail of Bridge, this source offers more background, such as the date of his honorary degree.

How I laughed—at great length—at your perfectly phrased, deadpan comment "the good old days" regarding the 1674 flogging of a student, preceded & followed by prayer. I would not be at all surprised if the punished offense was that of dozing off during a three-hour sermon on piety and virtue. Thanks for the laughs. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Funny -- I ran into monumentsandmemories.com just about the same moment you were posting your message above -- it's in my folder of bookmarks-to-transfer-to-talkpage. I don't think it can be used as a citable source (except maybe temporarily) but it certainly has pointers to good stuff, subject to confirmation at the source it cites e.g. the suggestion that the (a?) title of the statue is The Puritan Scholar.

Personally, I'm most tickled by Life Mag's "Memorial Hall, a huge Victorian Gothic barn..."

Now then... You might be aware that Found5dollar, who originally created the statue article, nominated it for "Did You Know?" I guess they held it in limbo for a long time because they consider cite-needed tags to be shameful (they'd rather just throw text away -- see edit summary at [8], the weird discussions here Template:Did you know nominations/John Harvard statue and here Template Talk:Did you know nominations/John Harvard statue, and -- believe it or not -- this evaluation of my (and your) efforts [9]). Anyway, it looks like it's gonna get its link on the main page at 11am (Boston time) on Tuesday November 27.

I think the article is in very good shape now, but there are still things I'd like to do before it moves into the spotlight. So can you keep your sharp eyes on the page as much as you can (and of course contribute too if so moved) between now and then? -- and I hope you won't mind my "assigning" you some tasks? In order I plan to work on --

• Further abridge and better integrate the Greene letter. It's excellent, the best presentation I've seen on "founding", but it's a bit long and it's weak on the statue being "ideal" rather than a likeness.
• Expand discussion of "ideal". There's a fascinating subtext to those discussions back then -- no time to exlain now, but watch this space.

One thing I certainly won't have time for is formalizing the cites with templates. If you feel moved to do that it would be a big improvement to the article. Again, I hope you don't feel I'm bossing you around -- I don't think you do, but please speak up if I'm wrong.

Important: We should not add the stamp image now -- even hint of a copyright problem the article will get the article dropped from the DYK queue like a hot potato.

EEng (talk) 17:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The real world has been relentless today so I've done just about nothing since my post above. I should get something done in the next few hours/overnight so if you can be sure to give it a looking over early Tuesday morning to be sure there's nothing embarrasing I'd really appreciate it. EEng (talk) 03:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Will do. If any of the citation needed tags can go, they should, overnight. Yo ho, goalward bound. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to go; very nice work. With the spike in exposure I am prepared to see some vandalism. Everyone, it seems, likes to tease Harvard. Any pies in the face of John Harvard will be promptly countered. Hertz1888 (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Aren't you an admin? If so, and there's substantial vandalism from IPs, you might consider semi-protection (that blocks IPs only, right? -- because -- CAREFUL -- I'm just an everyday user so don't lock me out!). As I think you know I'm very careful in my edits, so that every new version is one that's OK for display (a couple in the last 30 minutes being embarrassing exceptions -- but those were before it went "live" to main page -- I'll be extra careful from here out) -- I do want to add some additional footnote material, so please keep looking over my shoulder to the extent you can. I think it remains on main page until 7pm Boston time (which is where I assume you are). EEng (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC) P.S. You don't have "email this user" enabled, but I do. Don't you think it's time we "met" -- we could then exchange phone #s and thereby discuss further changes by phone. Strictly up to you, of course. If you do email, then post here to tell me so I'll know to check my email.

I think it would be a fine idea, but I will have to wait on it for now due to circumstances. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Another resource of interest is found here. I wish I could remember who it was that said (citably) that the statue is based on three lies, yet Harvard's motto is Veritas, truth. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm forced offline until abt 5pm Boston time. Can you keep a vandalism watch? (I'm asking another friend as well.) Also, the new section on the 1890 incident needs proofreading. Thanks! EEng (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Aye, aye, sir. Monitoring. Did the June 3, 1890 am Globe really say "the suspicious was magnified"? Hertz1888 (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Back now. At ease. Good job, sailor! suspicion was magnified EEng (talk) 22:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

More than 15,000 viewings recorded (with only one trivial vandalization) in eight hours' time. A respectable & respectful response! Hertz1888 (talk) 05:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

My delay in extending reciprocal congratulations, and responding to some of your points above, has been inexcusable. It continues to be a pleasure working with you. (I especially appreciate your pretending to be amused at my deadpan humor.) Your musing re origin of 3 lies set my feet on a little journey of discovery -- stand by. EEng (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Still to come. In the meantime, since you enjoy a good laugh, try this [10]. Just the thought of it cuts me up at inappropriate moments. EEng (talk) 07:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

RfArb: Jerusalem

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Jerusalem and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, -- tariqabjotu 20:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Moderation of Jerusalem RfC

Hello. You are receiving this message because you have recently participated at Talk:Jerusalem or because you were listed at one of the two recent requests for mediation of the Jerusalem article (1, 2). The Arbitration Committee recently mandated a binding request for comments about the wording of the lead of the Jerusalem article, and this message is to let you know that there is currently a moderated discussion underway to decide how that request for comments should be structured. If you are interested in participating in the discussion, you are invited to read the thread at Talk:Jerusalem#Moderation, add yourself to the list of participants, and leave a statement. Please note that this discussion will not affect the contents of the article directly; the contents of the article will be decided in the request for comments itself, which will begin after we have finalised its structure. If you do not wish to participate in the present discussion, you may safely ignore this message; there is no need to respond. If you have any questions or comments about this, please leave them at my talk page. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: rounding up step one

Hello. This is a boilerplate message for participants in the moderated discussion about the Jerusalem RfC - sorry for posting en masse. We have almost finished step one of the discussion; thanks for your statement and for any other contributions you have made there. This is just to let you know I have just posted the proposed result of step one, and I would like all participants to comment on some questions I have asked. You can find the discussion at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#Judging the consensus for step one - please take a look at it when you next have a moment. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 17:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step two

Hello. This is to let you know that we have now started step two in the Jerusalem RfC discussion, in which we will be deciding the general structure of the RfC. I have issued a call for statements on the subject, and I would be grateful if you could respond at some time in the next couple of days. Hope this finds you well — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Diamond

Please contact me on my talk page regarding Jared Diamond page Rhonda.R.Shearer (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC). Thank you

 Done

Boston FAR

I have nominated Boston for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. ELEKHH^T 13:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have started to go through the article to address issues brought up in the FAR. Can you be able to look through the article (particularly pertaining to prose) to make sure the article can be read smoothly? Thanks. Pentawing^Talk 06:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed your efforts. Thanks for all the hard work. I will give the article a close reading and some tweaking, but may not be able to get to it for a day or two. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step two question

Hello everyone. I have asked a question about having drafts versus general questions at the Jerusalem RfC discussion, and it would be helpful if you could comment on it. I'm sending out this mass notification as the participation on the discussion page has been pretty low. If anyone is no longer interested in participating, just let me know and I can remove you from the list and will stop sending you these notifications. If you are still interested, it would be great if you could place the discussion page on your watchlist so that you can keep an eye out for new threads that require comments. You can find the latest discussion section at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#Step two discussion. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. This is just a quick message to let you know that unless there is significant ongoing discussion, I intend to wrap up step two in a few days, probably on Thursday 31st 28th February. I invite you to have a look at the discussion there, especially at question five where I have just asked a question for all participants. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

Sewing up all the things to fix after the Big move (heh) has been quite an exercise, I appreciate you catching one of the things I'd left undone! --j⚛e decker^talk 04:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

A lot of detail work for you, I'm sure. Glad I could help. I really appreciate hearing from you. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for this small but important improvement of my edit [11]! You're absolutely right, "states" is a much better way of phrasing it. My initial "claims" might be interpreted as doubt, which wasn't my intention, so your improvement is a much better option.Jeppiz (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree. Thanks for the nice note. Hertz1888 (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Griffin's Wharf at the end of Gridley Street

Hi Hertz, I reverted your change to my correction of the Boston Tea Party's Destruction of Tea section. Please see the talk page for an explanation. My edit was not "unsourced". I plainly gave the full title of the map which plainly shows the location of Griffin's Wharf at the end of Gridley Street. On the 1775 map Gridley Street is not specifically labeled, but you can readily verify that the street is Gridley by referencing any modern Boston map. The previous statement in the article that it was at the end of Pearl Street is incorrect. If you wish to view the 1775 map you can do so by visiting the Library of Congress online map archive: http://www.loc.gov/resource/g3764b.ct000250/. John Chamberlain (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the courtesy of a message here. I commented at the article's talk page before I saw your message here. The study essentially confirms the location given in your text, after considering various maps from that period. Hertz1888 (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Namesake FYI

Hi, you reverted my edit regarding the definition of the word "namesake." I think we should keep the article as you put it. However, do note that the word is most frequently used to apply to the new receiver of the name, not the original, in my experience. Apparently the definition is changing to become the opposite of what it once was: http://www.creators.com/lifestylefeatures/words-and-trivia/rob-kyff-word-guy/don-t-forsake-meaning-of-namesake.html -kslays (talk • contribs) 21:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Just passing by so I thought I'd stick my nose in... You are mistaken -- namesake has long been used "in both directions". You'll find plenty of 19th-c uses of the phrase namesake of old here. [12] In fact, the base denotation of namesake is that two things share the same name, without there being any "named after" relationship at all. EEng (talk) 04:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting, thanks for the info EEng! -kslays (talk • contribs) 23:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

You'll get my bill. EEng (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step three

Hello all. We have finally reached step three in the Jerusalem RfC discussion. In this step we are going to decide the exact text of the various drafts and the general questions. We are also going to prepare a summary of the various positions on the dispute outlined in reliable sources, per the result of question nine in step two. I have left questions for you all to answer at the discussion page, and I'd be grateful for your input there. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Extraterrestrial skies for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Extraterrestrial skies 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/Extraterrestrial skies 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.Roodog2k (talk) 13:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Twilight

Hello Mr. Hertz, Just running this by you... Since the Twilight movie series, that article has taken a terrible Vandal beating. Perhaps it's time to save us all some work, and semi protect the page. What do you think? Thanks Pocketthis (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I am all for doing so, but anticipate that presently the response would be that four instances in 10 days (and longer) does not merit such protection. If the unwanted attention escalates I will not hesitate to file a request at WP:RPP (unless you beat me to it). Hertz1888 (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• We may have to wait for the next Twilight movie to be released, and then each time one goes to DVD.....:) Thanks for your reply. Pocketthis (talk) 00:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Halva

Hello! I tried to make some fixing on this article, but unsuccessfully http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halva --Palapa (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Damage repaired—previous version restored. Always best to check for possible problems by previewing edits before saving. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.--Palapa (talk) 07:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

note

hi. hi there. I left a note for anyone in Arbcomm, here at this page. feel free to let me know what you think of this note, if you wish. appreciate your feedback. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Something to contemplate tomorrow. I may have comments or questions then. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Beacon Hill, Boston

Thanks so much for catching some edits on the Beacon Hill, Boston article! I thought I created my own edit conflict (that seems to happen to me if I've made a number of edits with a number of previews). Anyway, I'll just update a section at a time now, which should cut down on the possibility of edit conflicts.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

You should be thanked for your sustained, major efforts. My tidying up (done for now) was mainly trivial stuff. I find it can be hard to proof one's own stuff.

Could you check my edit of the Geography section? I tried not to affect any factual accuracy or create conflicts with the sources, but it would be good to have that confirmed. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure, will do!--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for catching misses on my part - typos are one thing, but I was sure I had take "Boston Common" out of that spot. Great job making sure it's accurate!--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure. All the best, Hertz1888 (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for clarification regarding Jerusalem RFC

A request for clarification has been submitted regarding the ArbCom mandated Jerusalem RFC process. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: finalising drafts

Hello. We have almost finished step three of the Jerusalem RfC discussion, but before we move on to step four I would like to make sure that all the participants are happy with the drafts that we have chosen. The content of the drafts are likely to dictate what ends up in the actual article, after all, so I want to make sure that we get them right.

So far, there hasn't been much interest in the process of choosing which drafts to present to the community, and only three editors out of twenty submitted a drafts statement. I have used these three statements to pick a selection of drafts to present, but we still need more input from other participants to make sure that the statements are representative of all participants' wishes. I have started discussions about this under question seven and question eight on the RfC discussion page, and I would be grateful for your input there.

Also, there have been complaints that this process has been moving too slowly, so I am going to implement a deadline. If there haven't been any significant objections to the current selection of drafts by the end of Wednesday, 8 May, then I will move on to step four. Questions or comments are welcome on the discussion page or on my talk page. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step four

Hello everyone. We are now at step four of the Jerusalem RfC discussion, where we will decide the details of the RfC implementation. This is the home stretch - the RfC proper will begin as soon as we have finished this step. Step four is also less complicated than the previous steps, as it is mostly about procedural issues. This means it should be over with a lot more quickly than the previous steps. There are some new questions for you to answer at the discussion page, and you can see how the RfC is shaping up at the RfC draft page. Also, when I say that this step should be over with a lot quicker than the previous steps, I mean it: I have set a provisional deadline of Monday, 20th May for responses. I'm looking forward to seeing your input. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: final countdown

Hello again, everyone. I have now closed all the questions for step four, and updated the RfC draft. We are scheduled to start the Jerusalem RfC at 09:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC). Before then, I would like you to check the draft page, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem, and see if there are any errors or anything that you would like to improve. If it's a small matter of copy editing, then you can edit the page directly. If it's anything that might be contentious, then please start a discussion at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#The final countdown. I'll check through everything and then set the RfC in motion on Thursday. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC has started

Hello again everyone. We have finally made it - the RfC is now open, and a few editors have chimed in already. The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem. I'm sure you don't actually need me to tell you this, but please go over there and leave your comments. :) You are the editors most familiar with the Jerusalem lead dispute on Wikipedia, so it would be very useful for the other participants to see what you have to say. And again, thank you for all your hard work in the discussions leading up to this. We shall reconvene after the results of the RfC have been announced, so that we can work out any next steps we need to take, if necessary. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Captions

Hello Hertz1888. Including the Brooklyn Museum in our captions is important because that is where people can find the original, larger file of the image posted. They are all a part of our permanent collection and should be referenced as such. Many other museums have done the same with their images and I don't see why it is such a problem. They are being linked through wiki commons and show up in the link as such. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tracield (talk • contribs) 18:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree. Provenance information is readily available by clicking on the image. Putting it in each caption does not describe the subject matter depicted and can confuse the reader. Please put new sections at the bottom of talk pages. It took a while to find this one and move it. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. The museum should be linked and, if included at all, which is not necessary as it is on the image file, should go last. Either the artist's name or the title of the work should go first. And please drop these "overall"s and use normal punctuation, and if appropriate include in the caption why the image is relevant, and dates. Your additions will last longer if this is done. See WP:VAMOS (and WP:COI and WP:SPAM). Johnbod (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Posts above copied to User talk:Tracield#Image captions. Please use that page for any further discussion on this topic. Hertz1888 (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)