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 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6

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

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)

nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! wishes you peace!

Shalom

nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} has given you a falafel sandwich! Falafel sandwiches are a specialty of the Middle East. With a little tahini and maybe a spicy sauce, they are delicious and promote WikiLove. Hopefully, this one has added flavor to your day.

Spread the goodness of falafel by adding {{subst:Falafel}} to someone's Talk page with a friendly message! Give a falafel sandwich to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend.

nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 21:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! It has indeed added flavor. Yum! "Eat hummus. Give chick peas a chance." (author unknown). Hertz1888 (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I came across this article and thought I would share it with you, as it seems to touch on areas you occasionally edit. Warm Regards, -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 04:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

תיקון עולם

Peace is nothing more than a lull in a battle; a time during which each side steps back in order to tend their wounds and refine their fighting techniques. Sadly, the best we can hope for in olam ha'zeh is a momentary stalemate. However we must never forget tikkun olam. For our reality is nothing but a boat adrift on water, balanced by permanent uncertainty... --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 05:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The one sided nature of things here gets really old. Its sad to watch. Transgressions should be punished, but equally so. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 05:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for all the editings !!! Bambiker (talk) 11:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Planetary tides

This idea is often brought up, for the simple reason that the beat frequency of the Jupiter and Saturn orbits more or less matches the length of the solar cycle. However when analyzed in detail, and there is literature beyond what's in New Scientist, the tidal forces have been shown to be utterly negligible relative to the body forces in the convection zone that drive the dynamo and hence make sunspots. I couldn't read the New Scientist article on line, but I did check out the other reference and found it to be based on an obviously flawed report that never got published. Hugh Hudson (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Clearly much more to this than I ever imagined. I respect your analysis. Thanks for sharing it with me. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Hello Hertz1888! I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 01:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Yum! Thanks! And it's completely unexpected. Great collection of quotes on your user page. Well chosen! Hertz1888 (talk) 01:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Era style

Hello. Because you participated at some point in this lengthy discussion about the wording of MOS guidelines pertaining to the use of BC/AD and BCE/CE, I thought you might want to contribute to the current discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#RfC on era style (BC/AD and BCE/CE). I'm trying to notify all the individuals who took part in the earlier discussion but haven't weighed in yet for the current one. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for copy editing Kathrine Switzer! Jokestress (talk) 06:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Was it something I said?

I haven't heard from you in ages -- mightily disappointed not to have gotten a laugh on [1]. So listen -- I have the idea that Harry Elkins Widener Memorial Library and Harry Elkins Widener should be merged. I had the idea already -- mostly because, for obvious reasons, there's not that much to say about Harry, and much of the text and images in his article overlap what is/ought to be said in the Library article. Then I got to thinking about adding info on the HEW Collection and HEW Memorial Room [2] and, again, the allegiance of such material is very evenly split between the man himself and Mommy's library, so a merge seems even more sensible. I think this qualifies as an uncontroversial merge and I hate setting up all those templates to propose one, so I thought I'd just go ahead and do it, if it seems OK to you too.

While I've got you -- any thoughts here? [3]

I don't know if they're any worse than the articles related to other major schools, but really, it's very disheartening to see the wretched state of most Harvard articles. I don't know why I'm mentioning this just now -- I guess just commiserating.

EEng (talk) 06:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Claims Jews are not an ethnic group

Hi! I went on the Germans page and saw that on the collage they put Einstein and Marx, who were obviously not German. I opened a discussion on the topic on the talk page, and I got a bunch of Germans saying Jews are not an ethnic group but a religion. Could you join the discussion and help explain them that Jews are an ethnic group and Einstein (who identified as a Jew) and Marx are Jewish.

[4] I guess Germans have a thing for trying to make the Jewish ethnicity not exist. Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Einstein: Noch eine Art Anwendung des Relativitätsprinzips zum Ergötzen des Lesers: Heute werde ich in Deutschland als "Deutscher Gelehrter," in England als "Schweizer Jude" bezeichnet; sollte ich aber einst in die Lage kommen, als "bete noire" präsentiert zu werden, dann wäre ich umgekehrt für die Deutschen ein "Schweizer Jude," für die Engländer eine "Deutscher Gelehrte." EEng (talk) 05:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Dead Sea length

I don't understand how you can insist to consider the length of the Dead Sea equal to km. 67 when the coastal lenght is ​​135 km, that is twice. Anyone has studied a little geometry understands that it can't be so, because the Dead Sea is not a toothpick but it has a width too. Just open Google Earth and measure it with a ruler. It is long 50 km. I say this with regret, because, seen the obvious inaccuracy of the page, I proceeded to amend it, but a zealous backroller promptly restored the wrong version, justifying this with a lack of motivation by me (!). It's you, instead, who should explain to the world how it is possible that the perimeter of a lake is twice the length. An error in a Wikipedia page there may be, the reversal of an error deleting the contribution of those who corrected him, however, there must not be. Best regards. Tirk48 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tirk48 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. No one has accused you of lacking motivation. All unexplained numerical changes are suspect, and often are difficult to distinguish from vandalism. You can avoid many misunderstandings by using the edit summary space to explain your intentions and leave a record for other editors. Also, it is always preferable to find and provide a reliable source for any new and changed information, especially if it might be called into question. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I have revised the length figure in the article according to a cited reference. Thank you for calling attention to the need for a revision. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Isn't there some noticeboard or something....

...where I can complain about this [5] outrageously offensive slander? EEng (talk) 13:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Your strong antipathy to the sons of Eli notwithstanding, I think it might be time to walk away from the referenced conversation, where your humor seems to be unappreciated and unreciprocated. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Please, we're all adults here. You mean bastards of Yale, no? Anyway, uou cannot possibly have known how wise your counsel was. See, in order:

• This warning I received that humor on talkpages constitutes vandalism: [6].
• My measured response: [7].
• Then finally, this postmortem of the ensuing colossal trainwreck [8] -- be sure to follow all the links in order.

Next time lash me to the mast, will you please? EEng (talk) 02:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

But just as I prepare to press Save, comes this: [9]. Isn't that nice? It's like a Hallmark After-School Special.

I don't want to see you feed any trolls and/or get yourself in trouble. You can accomplish more on the loose than in the slammer. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure? EEng (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

To each his own. Thanks for sharing that ironic tale. It is good to know the Minor story was a major success. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't disregard dire dissuasion!

Warning: Hazardous edit summary inside. Unhide content only under consonance-proof conditions!

[10]

John Harvard statue

I thought a peer review might be fun. What do you think? Anything we should do first? I'm not an FA hound but I think this should qualify, don't you? -- though I don't relish a new pissing contest, of course. EEng (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Someone has given us, just below on this page, a link to the FA criteria. I think peer review (WP:PR) is a different story, but both seem to abhor loose ends such as ambiguities, tags, misformatted citations, etc. It would follow that the first thing to do is to aggressively tidy up the article as much as possible. I'll try to help, as time permits, but it doesn't permit much these days. Cheers, Hertz1888 (talk) 08:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

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)

May we recommend...

Thought you might enjoy this (though through some twist of fate I ran into our urinary friend again). More to be done, but would appreciate your impressions. EEng (talk) 04:14, 12 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)

Cambridge boundaries map

Hello- Regarding your revert of my caption change on the Cambridge, MA article: While the caption is not completely incorrect as it stands, the implication is that the map's focus is Cambridge, which it is not. I wouldn't want you to think I made that edit without consideration; I make maps for a living, so I might be a stickler for accuracy in titles. Though the map linked there is a good one on a statewide scale, it is hard to make out much detail at the town level. I am sure we could find a much better one that depicts the historical boundaries of Cambridge along with the present ones. In fact, I'll wager Cambridge's GIS people have one already, or at least have the data to generate one. I can see you take some stewardship of the Cambridge article, so maybe you would know where to look for such a map, but I'd be happy to contact the city GIS dept if you like. Regards, Eric ^talk 15:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Eric, I made the change only with great hesitation and the highest respect for your intentions. There is no way to make matters really right with this small-scale, inadequate map (which even fails to show Newton as part of the original Cambridge). I have been looking without success in books for a better one. By all means inquire with the GIS folks. Another promising resource would be the Cambridge Historical Commission, though obtaining copies of materials might require a visit to their offices. Permission to publish might be another issue. In the meantime, I propose we expand the caption to say, "A map showing the original boundaries of Cambridge and other Massachusetts cities and towns", unless you think that might be too unwieldy. Best regards, Hertz1888 (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I chatted with a helpful GIS guy from the city yesterday who doesn't know of any data depicting the original boundaries. It would be a fun project to track sources down and make the data. I can't do it right now, but drop me a line if you come across a possible source. Cheers, Eric ^talk 15:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Hertzian wave

Hi, Hertz! (waves) EEng (talk) 13:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC) P.S. Did you know Andrew Gleason?