I added extra information about usage imperator title of Ottoman, but someone unfairly removed the edit under colour of etymology because Ottoman title derives from caesar. Well, russian monarchs used imperator title as tsar, tsar derives from caesar. This information is present in text. Why was my edit removed? My edit was removed unfairly, i severely censure. -Historianengineer (talk) 23:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)-Reply[reply]

This the section of the article about the Russian title:

In 1721, as part of his drive to both westernize the Russian Empire and assert the monarchy's claim that it was the successor to the Byzantine emperors, Peter the Great imported the Latin word directly into Russian and styled himself imperator (Императоръ). The style remained the official one for all his successors down to the end of the Russian Empire in 1917, though the Russian rulers continued to be colloquially known as tsar (a word derived from "Caesar"), which they had begun to use c. 1480 to likewise assert their contention to be the heirs to the Byzantine state (see: Third Rome.) Reigning female Russian rulers were styled imperatritsa.

So as you can see it's mostly about the word imperator. We also mention "tsar" only because it was the commonly used title of the ruler and the one that most people will recognize, but not their formal title, which was "imperator".

Again, the article is about the specific title imperator, not the concept of an emperor or Roman-derived titles. --Jfruh (talk) 02:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Jfruh, I have been thinking about how to better organize the emperor's page for awhile, especially after the Roman Emperor page was created with many details of succession, etc. You can go ahead and fix it if you want; I'll help when I can, but at the moment I don't have regular internet access and I'm not sure when I'll get it back (it's impractical to spent large amounts of time editing Wikipedia in the library :)). Adam Bishop 16:37, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You're right. I reverted. Mackerm 23:57, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Excellent new image. I was moved to build a new subsection round it. I see you're more of an Antiquity head than an image head, but I'm incompetent to get images into Wikipedia (see my begging plea at Wikipedia:Requested pictures under Art 2.1). Nevertheless, the more images integrated into Wiki text the better. Hope you get hooked! Wetman 18:35, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi Jfruh. I noticed your picture of the runic inscription in Istanbul. I'm an American/Canadian citizen of Scandinavian/Varangian descent living in Holland and will be travelling to Istanbul in the not too distant future. I'd love to see that column. Do you perchance remember its location? If so, I'd really appreciate it if you could email it to me at tymothi_j_2 @ yahoo.com, Many thanks in advance!

Hey, that's a neat article on Ghost stations you wrote there. One little question - are these ever referred to in the singular, as in a Ghost station? Singular names are preferred for article titles, so that's why I'm wondering. - RedWordSmith 04:14, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

No problem; I went ahead and moved the article to Ghost station. You can rename a page using the tab entitled "move" at the top. Full instructions are available at m:Help:Renaming (moving) a page. - RedWordSmith 04:25, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

thanks for the Ghost stations article.. I´ve started to enlarge the history section of the Berlin S-Bahn but haven´t completed the task yet IsarSteve 16:23, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is a comprehensive list of stubs to be found at Wikipedia:Stub_Categories; by the way, in this last case Rail Stubs would have been appropriate, IMHO, but F Market wasn't a stub anymore Lectonar 10:08, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jfruh: Thanks for responding to my questions on Talk:Theodosius_I#Arians_vs._Homoians. I've finnally replied there — with more questions I'm afraid ;-) Paul August ☎ 23:14, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jfruh, I had just finished reading your update to Theodosius_I, when I got your message ;-) On first pass you seem to have delt with the issues rather well I think. But I want to think about them some more, and also read the Arianism article, before I comment any more. Paul August ☎ 06:44, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

I can understand the re-insertion of spaces after punctuation marks (which I avoid myself) in the "copyedit" of Arianism.However,I specifically regret that you recombined the line I severed into two,because it exceeds the line-length limit of Lynx (browser) (at least as I have always had it configured).I was only able to correct the spelling error in the link to catechumen by dividing that line.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 16:26, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi - I know that the two terms can be confusing to someone who doesn't know them. That said, it is still absurd to have a notice - we don't have disambiguation for misspellings, and we shouldn't - there are all kinds of things which might be confusing, and there are all kinds of things somebody might look up mistakenly. That doesn't mean we should have notices, which incorrectly imply that there is some connection between the two things. john k 22:08, 2 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I saw you mention that you were a frequent contributor to the Zoroastrianism article on its talk page. I noticed some edits today by 138.88.151.133 that just don't seem right but I'm not familiar enough with the topic to really know. Could you take a look and see if 138.88.151.133's contributions are accruate? Thanks! Tobycat 01:52, 29 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for correcting the previous user's mistake. You are correct-the monarch is formally a component of Parliament. Deus Ex 19:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The literature was confusing several things. I'm glad you asked. I'll try my best to answer your questions.

(1) Independence, Missouri is believed by Mormons to be the site of the Garden of Eden. Just north of there, in a place called Adam-ondi-Ahman is where the Mormons believed an important meeting took place in the days of Adam. I know what you're asking: How in the world can you possible believe that the Garden of Eden was in America of all places? Remember that before the time of Peleg, the earth was not divided. That is, it was Pangea, or one continent, surrounded by water on all sides. I speculate that the earth wasn't assembled such that the east coast of America was the west coast of Europe and Africa, as geologists will say. I speculate that it was actually the Pacific Ocean that was dry land (with all the islands being mountain tops). So the land area was massive, with the Atlantic Ocean being the only ocean. Now, we know from the Bible that the Garden of Eden was Eastward. This makes a lot more sense now because Independence, MO would have been near the East Coast of this Pangea. Perhaps the seas would've been raised significantly as well, causing Eden to be literally on the East Coast.

(2) Temples are built everywhere cities are built or inhabited by Mormons. Right now, there are hundreds of temples. There was supposed to be a temple at Independence, MO, but persecution there prevented it from happening. (See 1830s (Mormonism) for an example of what has happened. (Note, the RLDS church has built a temple in Independence. But the LDS church doesn't accept the authority of the RLDS and vice-versa. Therefore, the LDS church believes it is a great building that is pretty cool to look at, but it isn't a real temple where God can manifest himself and pour out blessings.)

(3) (Bonus material) LDS members believe that one of the events that precede the Second Coming is that the LDS church reoccupies Independence (after every living creature has been removed by some future event) and that the LDS church build a temple there. The LDS church believes that Independence is where Zion will be rebuilt, and it will spread (peacefully, not by coercion) to cover the entire earth from there. Right now, we are prevented from living the full law when it comes to building Zion. This is frustrating to more than a few members who would love to enter into the covenant to build Zion, myself included. I can tell you all sorts of neat things about what Zion is going to be like, and how it is going to be built, and I can show you what we have built so far (spiritually and temporally), but that's another discussion that I'm sure you are not interested in right now. Regardless, the temple is central to building Zion, and we can't begin building Zion without a temple.

That's the answer as completely and precisely as I can give it. To tell you the truth, I don't expect you to understand or even accept the things I described here. I don't believe the things here will build real faith in Jesus Christ, either. Rather, these things come after you have built a solid rock of faith and after you have the foundation laid. True faith can come only through close contact with the Father through personal, sincere prayer, and a desire to give everything up to serve him. So if you think I'm a nut, I understand why, and I won't hold it against you. ;-) Jgardner 17:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One suspects the Jedi thing must be a joke. The speech was made during a debate on a proposed law to ban speech that "incites religious hatred", and in all probability he was mocking the idea of the Jedi religion being protected in this way... Evercat 29 June 2005 19:51 (UTC)

Not sure if you have gotten an answer to your question posted at talk:Wireless USB, so here's mine: Wireless usb uses much of the same technologies in USB but wirelessly, such as speed modes. Wireless USB would have a similar method used in WiFi, that it will not have wires and detect hubs wirelessly. I'd say there will be USB to Wireless USB adapters, pcimcia and the like.--x1987x June 30, 2005 16:07 (UTC)

Sorry about that - i just forgot to put back in the Bundesland part when i was editing. PMA 08:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jfruh, huh? I have my suspicions. So long as we only have this in common and not that. 13:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

It works fine for me; where does [1] take you?--Pharos 17:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Hmm.. yes, the AP actually has a weird purist system where they won't host anything at their own site and you have to go through one of their affiliates. You can click the map and cookie in a news outlet you prefer to view AP content through. Anyway, I've changed the link so it goes straight to the USA Today copy.--Pharos 17:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have created a section answering your question about Broomfield, Colorado. ^neoEinstein 08:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In looking at Image:Marchmetro.jpg, I've been trying to figure out which Metro station it is. It looks like it might be Stadium-Armory, but due to the fact that the image is somewhat blurred, I can't make a positive ID on it. Hoping you can shine some light on this. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wasn't disputing the importance of the Dome of the Rock. As my edit summary said, I was removing link spam. I have no doubt that the link contained good information, but when someone does nothing but add links to Wikipedia articles to their own Web site, it dilutes the quality of Wikipedia and unfairly rewards the link spammer. However, I am not going to revert your reversion. --Craig (t|c) 14:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah I'm not sure what to call that article...as I said on the talk page, I suppose he must be numbered after the Roman Alexanders, but I don't know. I see that I wrote the original article, and I assume I must have just clicked on a pre-existing link on the emperors list. Adam Bishop 21:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You wrote on Talk:Green Line that you were re-organizing the line order in the Green Line dis-ambiguation page. You said you were going to do it for all of the line color dis-ambiguation pages, but I saw no edits to the others. (Note that there are a total of 8, including the Green Line page; these are Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Purple, Brown, and Pink.) Georgia guy 21:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I finally did the same thing you did to all the other color line dis-ambiguaiton pages except Brown Line, which didn't need any moving. Georgia guy 22:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noticing your change from quality to high-capacity is narrowing the aspect. Yes, the article can be improved, but then the definition of BRT seems to be intentionally vague in itself, on top of being a broad catch-all term. From my European perspective on BRT it seems to me that not only BRT wants to be high-capacity (which it is not, it is moderate capacity, not more) while avoiding the logical step to trams, but also to avoid the word bus which apparently has a negative connotation in the US.

Although I reorganised the article some time ago (well short of a complete rewrite) I feel that the remaining incoherent article structure reflects the unsharp meaning of the BRT term itself. Like the unsharp buzzword of quality ;-) -- Klaus with K 11:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello - I've changed "Khosrau" to "Chosroes" because that's how Norwich, undoubtfully an expert in Byzantine History, calls him in his books. Also, if you type "Khosrau" in Google you will have only 20 thousands records, in compare to 48 thousands of "Chosroes". However, I haven't noticed indeed that in Wikipedia the form "Khosrau" is more common. But, actually, it's not very important, I guess. Pietia 13:36, 18 December 2005

I try...I try. If you are interested you can see my new HE template on my babel page - it's warm and inviting try it. Chooserr 07:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it is about time for a Wikiproject on rail lines. Any opinions?? Georgia guy 02:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry to disappoint, but I haven't been following the run-up to the PA election in any detail. For one thing because I don't really expect it to happen, but also because I tend only to take a close interest in an election when the time comes to write it up. I have to say also that since Wilfried Dirksen moved his Electionworld website into Wikipedia, I've decided to stop writing election articles here (other than Australian ones). One resident election obsessive is enough, and I would rather concentrate on my own website, which is enough work to be going along with. I'm not prepared to follow Wilfried's example until Wikipedia adopts a system of protecting finished articles from vandalism, which I know won't happen. Adam 15:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You must mean classifying green lines by whether the commonly used name is "green line" or a variant implying it is green. Well, when using whether the term "green line" is widely used in deciding what to do with the line on the dis-ambiguation page, the choice would have to be to put the lines that are referred to almost exclusively as "the Green Line" of the appropriate rail system towards the top and those for which the commonly used term is a term independent of being green in color towards the bottom. Here is another question:

My talk page has 130 sections, which is almost 2/3 of the way towards the number of sections I want to know what to do when it reaches. Do you have a good decision?? Georgia guy 21:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw your Green Line sandbox and it appears to be consistent with what I wrote above. However, there is one rule it doesn't follow; which is that links to dis-ambiguation pages should not be piped. Georgia guy 21:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I am a bit all thumbs on this stuff, but I posted a reply to your query under what you sent me. Go well. Alfion.

Good questions! Not sure - I'll have a look. AndrewRT 17:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see someone's corrected the PFLP mistake - the Alternative includes DFLP not PFLP, a mistake copied from the Jerusalem post. AndrewRT 18:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi - Thanks for your kind comments. Unfortunately I've been away for the last few months on a research exchange program, so I wasn't there nor was I able to vote (sigh). I've I make contact with anybody who happened to have taken pictures, I'll see about getting them. In the meantime, I'll be recovering from the shock of these elections... Ramallite ^(talk) 18:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for responding re my comment on U.S. State. I'm an attorney. If I really wanted to find the information for myself I could do so fairly easily. Someone else had requested the info and my point was that I don't think it should be in an article on U.S. State. It is probaby in the U.S. Constitution, so an explanation in that article would be appropriate.

RickReinckens 08:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You sound like a pretty big Harry Turtledove fan. I work at the Turtledove wikicity and we need as much help as we can get. Your help would be appreciated. Raylan 17:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jfruh, I'd be happy to update the Baltimore Light Rail transit map. I'll try to get around to it within the next couple of days. I'm glad you like my maps! I use a combination of Adobe Illustrator and Photoshop, and occasionally use ArcGIS when I need basemaps. Darkcore 12:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The map's up. Sorry for the delay - hope it's everything you wanted! Darkcore 01:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grand Island, New York, yes, that list of restaurants was no big deal, but whoever put them in there must believe they are IMPORTANT in Grand Island. Having been there, I can understand why. Stepp-Wulf 04:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Considering your one of a few active editors that have taken an intrest in Baltimore Neighbourhood articles, i gigure i would run this by you. I am considering renaming the articled from their current format of Foo, Baltimore to Foo, Baltimore, Maryland. This eems to be a perferd way of naming neighborhood in US cities, though not all cities follow this format, and this would not effect all articles, their will be some exceptions. I have posted a mention of the List of Baltimore neighborhoods talk page and have not recived a responce in either way, though other editors that ih ave spoken with this that have made contrubutions to the article have not objected. Thoughts? --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not an issue, was planning on takeing care of it, might just go forward over the weekend, between the several other things i am trying to do. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 03:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LOL! I was in the process of this when you left your message! -LambaJan 14:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uh... what part of the Canada Line won't be SkyTrain technology?

Thanks for the explanation... I hadn't realised the whole thing was quite THAT ill-conceived. Joeyconnick 22:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for update to Baltimore article. Didn't realize "rowhouse" was one word. Davidbober 17:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is an unholy mess in the Maryland article regarding a section entitled "cultural identity." Most of the editors agree that the state is a Northern one, and many facts have been posted and adequately cited to prove that fact. A Confederate sympathizer, however, is constantly going onto the article, removing cited information, and replacing it with unsourced "statistics" that steer Maryland into the Southern category. Please read the whole debate, weigh in, and please, PLEASE, help.

History21 21:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)History21Reply[reply]

Hi Joshua

You write:

I noticed you eliminated my note on the SF Muni template to the effect that the T Third line was not yet in service. While I admit that it clutters up the template a bit, I am a bit uneasy with just listing currently operating and proposed lines together with no indication as to which is which. Do you think there might be another better way to make this distinction?

I understand your reservations. The template already has a link to the Third Street Light Rail Project, which I think is currently the principal point of entry for the line. Given that, I think I'd suggest removing the reference to T Third from the template for now, and rely on an onward reference from the project article. Anybody following that link will already be in no doubt that the line is a future, rather than current, thing. Once the line goes live, then this will switch around. The line article will be the key entry point, and the project article becomes a secondary, history article. -- Chris j wood 16:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. There is a survey on the names of Byzantine rulers at Talk:Constantine XI. Maybe you are interested in.--Panairjdde 18:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 05:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

30 minutes ago, an unregistered Wikipedian separated the line list at Green Line into 2 groups. I improved the edit recently. Any more improvements?? Georgia guy 16:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not only is "state of the art" a buzzword, but it cannot apply to two-decade-old trains. Good catch there! B.Wind 22:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Jfruh, sorry for not getting back to you right away. Thanks for your note on my page.

• Does the 1988 "State of Palestine" have any institutions that are distinct (legally or practically) from the PLO?

Not really. Although there are some embassies in a number of countries that recognized the 1988 declaration that are the "Embassy of the State of Palestine", they are practically PLO offices and perform functions related to the PLO and, in some limited form, the Palestinian Authority. There are no official separate institutions that exclusively serve or belong to a "State of Palestine".

• Hamas now participates in the activities of the PNA, but it is still not part of the PLO, correct?

Correct - The PLO comprises a number of different Palestinian liberation factions of which Hamas and other Islamic groups are not a part of. However, there is some movement to incorporate Hamas into the PLO, and this is one of the many things the so called "Prisoner's Document" that's in the news right now calls for. But to date this has not happened.

• I get that the PNA was specifically created as a non-sovereign entity under Oslo, but since 2000 hasn't it started acting a bit more like a sovereign entity?

Quite the opposite. What happened after 2000 is that many of the agreements (and remember that Oslo was for all purposes an interim agreement that was supposed to last no longer than five years) collapsed. For example, the PNA was supposed to have "security control" over several areas of the occupied territories, but most of these areas have since been reinvaded by Israel. The PNA was supposed to be able to import and export merchandise under Israeli supervision, with tax revenues on Palestinian goods collected by Israel and transferred to the PNA, but now the merchandise has been blocked (especially in Gaza) and the tax revenues frozen. PNA officials were issued VIP cards by Israel that enabled them to enter Israel freely and enabled them to pass through Israel's airport security with minimal hassles. After 2000, all VIP cards were withdrawn and Israel's airport was blocked for use by any Palestinian, VIP or otherwise, and the Palestinians' own airport in Gaza was destroyed. So far from gaining additional sovereignty, Israel has retaken some of the few token functions that it allowed the Palestinians to have. On the other hand, the PNA was not empowered to have any foreign affairs business, as that would imply some sort of sovereignty, and as such the PNA was not, for example, allowed to have a "foreign minister". But since 2000, that position has been created, but it is more of a symbolic post just to fill a cabinet seat and the "foreign minister" has no powers that Israel doesn't want him to have (i.e. none). Even the president, Abbas, cannot move around without first clearing it with the Israeli authorities who grant him a permit to move between Gaza and the West Bank or to leave the country.

• I know that there are such things as Palestinian passports -- who is eligable for these? Who issues them? Who recognizes them? And don't some states have diplomatic (though I'm guessing non-ambassadorial) relatiaons with the PNA, but not with the "State of Palestine"?

When Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza in 1967, it immediately clamped curfews and took a census of the Palestinian residents (door to door). All registered Palestinians were granted Israeli army identity cards with a serial number, and any Palestinian who happened to be abroad (for work, study, or even a vacation) and was not present at the time of the census was ineligible for an ID card, and thus lost the right to reside in Palestine. Throughout the decades afterwards, the Israeli military did allow very small numbers of exiled Palestinians (I think it was around 100 people a year in good years and less in the worse years) to get an ID card. The ID card was the sole proof of a Palestinians right (or as Israelis saw it, privilege) to live in Palestine. After the PNA was established, anybody who had such an ID card was eligible for a "Palestinian passport", but no one else. So Palestinians who did not possess an ID card, for example, refugees in camps elsewhere, were not eligible. Many PLO people and their families were allowed by the Israelis to be repatriated in Palestine and obtain ID cards (which were by then converted from orange-coloured Israeli stamped ones to green-coloured Palestinian stamped ones albeit still written in Hebrew and assigned an Israeli serial number) and thus were able to get passports. These passports are olive-coloured and have the words "Passport" in Arabic on them, but "Passport/Travel Document" in English, because as I wrote above, Palestinians were not allowed to have any sort of sovereignty and the Israelis insisted that the passport not be a real passport, hence the caveat words "travel document". These passports are recognized worldwide except in a few Arab countries who did not appreciate the Palestinians' peace talks with Israel (e.g. Syria, Libya - places where I would never want to go to anyway). Most countries, including the EU, US, Africa, and South America, issue visas onto these passports, although now that Hamas has taken over the interior ministry responsible for their issuance, I don't know if Western countries will still recognize them. My current one expires in 2007, and I guess I'll find out. They are valid for only 3 years at a time and have to be renewed completely each time (which usually means that a bearer studying or working abroad has to travel back to Palestine or mail the passport with a power-of-attorney of some sort because most countries do not have Palestinian embassies.) They MUST be registered by the Israeli authorities, who still control the borders, otherwise the bearer is blocked from traveling. Many states have relations with the PNA, but Palestinian representatives to those states usually maintain a PLO office or a general delegation that is usually barred from performing any consular activity or official activity that would constitute a sign of sovereignty. They do not have diplomatic immunity. Conversely, many states (including EU countries but not the US) have representative offices in Palestinian areas. For example, there is a German official representative, a Norwegian, Swedish, etc in Ramallah, but their levels of function varies. Palestinians are normally allowed to apply for visas it these locations, but such applications are in turn sent to official embassies or consulates in Israel for processing.

I think my responses were a lot longer than you anticipated, but please let me know if you have any further questions / requests for clarification. Regards, Ramallite ^(talk) 21:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I notice that you reverted an annoymous user on the Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom article with the statement "revert -- why did you replace newer stats with older ones?". However, if you check the reference they added, you will see the figures were just published today. As the new figures go up to 31 March 06 instead of 31 January 06, I am not sure how they can be described as older. Can you please explain if I missed something, or otherwise revert to the previous figures? Thanks. Road Wizard 20:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hear, hear. And the revised and updated stats were accompanied by a correct link to the General Register Office for England & Wales Official Press Release 23/6/06 (i.e. today!). --GuillaumeTell 21:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Road Wizard (see above) has re-reverted. Best. --GuillaumeTell 23:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry I haven't responded sooner, I have been a little busy the last few days. The annonymous user re-reverted your edit, so there was no harm done. Happy editing. :) Road Wizard 20:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Jfruh, I have read and considered what you wrote and have made some reverts again.

• I have clarified Demophilus as Homoian. I think that should be correct (if not please tell me)
• I have reinserted small, albeit qualified as rather small
• Re "minimizing Theodosius' role", I don't think that I have done this. I have toned down what in my book was quite onesided language. "Impose" sound slike Theodosius forcing Nicea on all, which is POV at least. There was coercion in some areas (particular in giving back churches to the orthodox) but hardly the whole story. whereas "achieve" is much more inclusive.

Another thing: I don't know where to put that Spanish 16th century Arian. He surely didn't belong into the intro, but I am not happy about the new position either. Any suggestions? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop promoting paganism like you did here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spencer_Perceval.

Thank you

Ice Cold 14:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is very clear what you`re doing,trying to make it look like he *believed* and things like that.Its not that he believed,its that he has discovered,so please stop trying to make it look like its doubtfull.Everyone know whathe discovered and just because you dont respect him or the Holy Book,thats not the reason to attack Perceval,becaue everyone knows that he was the greatest Prime Minister in the History of UK and Europe.

Ice Cold 15:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh my God.Why do you hate Perceval soooooo much? Are you Irish or what?
Ice Cold 17:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You clearly dont like Perceval just because he was good and honest Christian.And that right,I dont want any type of disscusion with you,or any other pagan for that matter.Just stop spiting on the Bible and Englsih legends like Spencer Perceval.goodbye

Ice Cold

(A repeat of what I just posted on the talk page):

I'm not in favor of deleting other people's text from talk pages, but this is patent nonsense. The streetcar line is named after the street in western San Francisco that it follows for much of its length. The street in turn is named after Theodore Judah, who helped conceive of the transcontinental railroad that connected California to the East Coast by land. Judah may have been Jewish (it was not an uncommon last name for American Jews in the nineteenth century), though that's not for sure.

The idea that any aritcle in Wikipedia should be promoting the idea that there's only one true religion is itself obviously problematic. --Jfruh (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually it's a famous sardonic quote from a san francisco-based military historian, greg friedman, not any kind of serious religious endorsement. --NEMT 21:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a reply to your question about the anglo-irish treaty ports.The Free State had control of the towns the british had the ports.If the british had control of the whole towns there would have been uproar.Also when the Free State was established the town of Queenstown was renamed Cobh.Cobh was one of the treaty ports.This suggests the Free State had control of that town and presumably had control over the other port towns. Dermo69

Hi jfruh mate, just backed up your comment about the dates for this Italian explorer it was my first question on reading it - sure needs an expert to come in and expand it a bit - cheers Robdav69

Good improvement - well done. Johnbibby 20:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, nice article, and not any sort of Vermont Separatist here, but Vermont was not a part of NY, NH, Quebec, or MA in the period 1777-1791. I acknowledge that several of Vermont's founders hoped for/anticipated eventual statehood. But, Vermont was not born of circumstances similar to the U.S. states you group it with. Vermont petitioned the federal government not as a U.S. territory. I am not in the habit of quick revisions, but feel the truth is closer my edits. How do you see Texas, and, especially California to have been republics and Vermont not? Best, Jim CApitol3 21:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Jfruh - I'm sorry I could not answer your full question in Talk:Pakistan coup attempt of 1995. How does a caliphate restoration work? I have no idea - perhaps a religious leader is appointed caliph. In this case it could have been Sufi Iqbal but thats speculation. Rama's arrow 16:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The About.com page states: "The source for this chronological list of deified emperors of Rome is the classic work on inscriptions by Sir John Edwin Sandys -- Latin Epigraphy (1927)." I think he qualifies as a reputable scholar.

As for post-Theodosius emperors being deified, while I would agree that the meanining and significance of deification certainly changed, that does not mean to say that it was actually completely abolished or that it stopped being done at all, if it continued to happen nominally, that is as an honorific rather than an actual cult with its own temples. Unless you can find a source which shows that deification never happened after a certain point, as opposed to it becoming more theoretical than real, then I do not think it is misleading or inaccurate to stick with the original list. Richard75 17:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a head's up that I just noticed and responded to a question you had posted on the discussion page for United States territorial court. I thought I'd cross-reference here since I don't know if you have the page watchlisted. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I won't bore you with the long litany of horrible experiences/very bad medical care I have had directly or experienced indirectly through friends and relatives at PP. I won't even mention the Dalkon Shield, Norplant, Depo...because I understand that just because you work for PP, this is in no way your fault personally, and has nothing to do with you. I am also aware of WP:NOT. Perhaps this would be a good time for you to reread it, even though you are an experienced editor. Personalizing issues/reacting to other editors as if you have been personally attacked by counterattacking with a personalized attack--I can accept that it's hard sometimes, but also hope you can cool off and not resume making inappropriate comments on my talkpage.

All best, Cindery 21:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm glad we worked things out, and I will take care to be sensitive to your feelings if we meet up anywhere on Wiki viz PP. (I actually became initially involved with Wiki when I saw the Dalkon Shield page--my mom had the Dalkon Shield; I was totally incapable of being unemotional.) We are only human--and that's a good thing.

Wishing you well, Cindery 21:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Sheila_dixon_balto_mayor2007.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies on the additions - I was cleaning up the first editor's entries while you were reverting him/her, and I presumed you just didn't like the lack of formatting and deletion of Philadelphia. However, you should probably place Atlanta where the other editor had it, as the MARTA system is described as heavy rail. ---Ckatz^chat_spy 04:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem whatsoever, and no apologies needed - I presumed it was due to the edit overlap. As for MARTA, thanks for the information. Cheers! --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disguised means ... BART is pretending to be a mass-transit system, when it really isn't. It's a commuter railway that is disguised to appear and operate like a subway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.188.15.49 (talk) 07:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]

From BART to Baron Silkin. I saw your question on Talk:Baron Silkin. I presume the barony was disclaimed owing to personal and/or political convictions, such as opposing hereditary titles or the peerage in general. Probably the same reasons for the second baron disclaiming the peerage, as he did not have a political career and was never a Member of Parliament. Regards, Tryde 21:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was reading Talk:Buffalo wings out of boredom, and I saw your username... it struck me as familiar but I couldn't remember why. Then I saw your user page and realized that I read The Comics Curmudgeon every day. Small world. Keep up the good work (There and here!) --Varco 07:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up re: the map. I'm a little busy IRL right now, but will try to update the map within the next couple of weeks. Darkcore 16:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aha, I see. And thank you for the kind words :) --Golbez 18:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've seen your comment on the page French legislative election, 2002, but it is quite dated (1-2 March night) so I answer here :

"SInce the Nat'l Assembly is elected in two rounds, from which election are the percentages in the % colummn derived? --Jfruh 01:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)"

The system of 2 rounds at each election in France (but UE parliament, of course), is used to let the little candidates have a say, then they disappear for the next round.

French presidential election : The aim is that the majority of valid votes had voted for the new president ; so only the best 2 candidates of the 1st round are qualified (quite idiot when left run separated and right united, or inverse : it produces something like in 2002).

French legislative election : France is divided in 577 circonscriptions, the winner of one of them becomes MP (i think it's the same for UK or Germany):

• In the first round, if a candidate gets more than 50%, he is already elected (so there is no more than 2 or 3 MPs already elected at this time).
• To progress to the second round, the candidates with less than a eight (12,5%) are eliminated (so it can mathematically reach 8 candidates to the 2nd round), unless if they are less than 2 to have had more than a eight (in this case, the best 2 are qualified).
• The best candidate of the second round, even if he'd only got 25% or less, becomes MP.

There was a try in 1986 to make a proportionnal vote, with the 100 départements, but it brought the National Front onto the political stage (they got a single MP).

--Sorry for the language mistakes. Don't know if you can add that stub in Elections in France, I just hope I've been understood and that you have at least your answer... 13 months later ! 82.240.207.81 12:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Phillysubwaysurfacemap.png. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add ((Replaceable fair use disputed)), without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 16:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Rail transit in Baltimore, Maryland, by Thx2005 (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Rail transit in Baltimore, Maryland fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Rail transit in Baltimore, Maryland, please affix the template ((hangon)) to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 15:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Template:MTARail, by Thx2005 (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Template:MTARail fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Template:MTARail, please affix the template ((hangon)) to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 16:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure no problem. It was a little daunting to organize all that information, but seemed to come out pretty good, I still have a lot of work to do with it though.

And yeah I do know Pam and Spilly. Did you used to debate in Baltimore too, or were you in a catholic forensic league?Thx2005 18:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. It was my intention when making that box to list everyone's endorsments. I first looked at the available web sites and then called each campaign. Those are all the endorsemnt up till last Friday. Dixon's were a little lopsided, so I only put in 3 or 4. Their campaign must have been alerted from my call and I noticed they put in the rest. Mitchell's people say as they get more endorsements they will go on the web site. Anyway, just trying to follow the directions at the top of the pages "you can help by expanding it"Marylandstater 05:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You beat me to the punch on that Carter endorsement. Marylandstater 23:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Posted a reply to your message for the County Seats of Maryland template. →Lwalt ^♦ talk 17:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Once a subject gets on this list, it can't come off? Is that the rule? I'm just curious because the Democratic Party article is important to me and many others. What might seem like splitting hairs to others doesn't seem so to me. What's it take to get an article off this list -- the Queen's pinkie print? Griot 22:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By that criterion, I can think of about 50 articles that qualify as "lame edit wars." Griot 15:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know. But, it sounds right!

Goodshoped35110s 02:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I don't think you remember me from the B-Geary back in black thingy, but I do need help.

I am currently migrating images to Wikimedia Commons from the Municipal Railway page in Wikipedia. There are only 4 pictures left, and that's to curb transit foamers.

This page was created to relieve overcrowded conditions at the Muni site over at Wikipedia. If you can, please help upload pictures to commons, then placing them in the appropriate galleries. IF you can, please help. Your help is greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Goodshoped35110s 04:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have changed the colour to #FF0000, which is what I'd do for red. You can do that at Template:Baltimore Light Rail color. For some reason that mint-green colour for the shuttle is labelled "both". The reason I mistakenly labelled the Penn-Camden shuttle as not stopping at intermediate stations was because the map (which you linked to) on MTA's website seemed to show the circles only over the blue line. I double checked and it seemed I was mistaken. Thanks for fixing that. I also removed the text "Baltimore/Penn Shuttle" (which wasn't added by me) and that was at Template:Baltimore Light Rail lines. --Quentin Smith 09:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where the Termini is is in Template:S-line/Baltimore_Light_Rail_left/Yellow, Template:S-line/Baltimore_Light_Rail_left/Blue, Template:S-line/Baltimore_Light_Rail_left/penn, Template:S-line/Baltimore_Light_Rail_right/Yellow, Template:S-line/Baltimore_Light_Rail_right/Blue and Template:S-line/Baltimore_Light_Rail_right/penn. All you do is type in the name of the Terminus into those templates. If it's in Template:Baltimore Light Rail stations it'll replace it like so; if not it'll suffix it with "Light Rail stop" (default) --Quentin Smith 18:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we all got ourselves confused, sorry about the vandal tag on the edit summary. The article looks OK now. Acroterion _(talk) 02:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. My name is Mary and I'm a reporter working on an article about Wikipedia. I'd like to interview you for my story--may I give you a call? My email is Mary.Spicuzza@sfweekly.com Thanks for your time, MaryMarynega (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Syro-Malankara Catholic Church is of Antiochean tradition and not of Chaldean.--omalloor 08:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

See when a list is to long your got to make different articles/lists. Its wikipedia policy. Thats why i removed those emperors. Maybe i'll add them after i finished cleaning up the list okay. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First thanks and i'll add later today, okay. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 19:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i recently noticed that the statement "territorial rights of Jamu and Kashmir is disputed" was removed without any problems on the article States of India. My point is why add this on Subdivisions of Pakistan when the indian article is free of POV edits unless you add this back i will continue to remove it from Pakistans subdivisions its time to treat Pakistan equally and start being nuetral yourself. 86.162.67.108 (talk) 12:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC) ill be waiting for your reply here 86.162.67.108 (talk) 12:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have nominated Talk:Area code 202, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talk:Area code 202. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Disregard - finger trouble by Rfc1394. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Jfruh. You have new messages at Talk:United States territorial court.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Seablade (talk) 07:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

maybe you would like to look at the new section I posted on the Baltimore talk page and comment on my proposal? ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 16:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Everett True versus the Law.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Milpitas, Berryessa, Pittsburg, and Antioch have all gotten the final go ahead actually, and the Livermore Etxension is nearly there too.Thisbites (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,

you just helped me out with my question about the style of British kings. I noticed you are interested in ancient history and just all history for that matter. I'm currently searching some information about the Altar of Victory. The wikipedia says the fate of this altar is unknown. I know that by 410 it was still not in the Senate, but that there was a discussion in the Roman world whether or not they did the right thing by neglecting the pagan gods. There were people that said the altar of Victory should have been placed back, others of course said it should not. I have no idea what happened to it after 410, do you? I'm searching some databases, but it's no good. I can't find anything. 81.68.255.36 (talk) 10:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your edit here deleted my previously made, apparently unrelated to your purposes, comment to the BLP noticeboard. I will restore my comment and suggest you review your edit to see whether it affected other member comments in unrelated notices. Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Followup...I note that User:Off2riorob reverted your edit and my personal objection has been rectified. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, yes, this is some glitch in the programming and it sometimes happens - as it was a bit complicated I just reverted your edit in this diff and in the process I have removed your addition, please feel free to replace your comment as desired. No worries - thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, all I did in making that edit was ... edit the page as I've been doing for the 8 years I've been editing Wikipedia, by clicking the "edit" tab and typing. Did not mean to erase your comment but I'm not sure what happened and how I could have been more careful. Shouldn't one of us have gotten an error message if there was an edit conflict? But, uh, thanks for removing my comment, I guess? --Jfruh (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi - there are usually no error messages when it occurs, its just a programming glitch - I would have replaced your comment but it looked complicated so I left it for you to re add. Like I said, no worries it happens occasionally I think its when two edits occur a precisely the same time. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As a participant to previous discussions at the South Tibet/ Arunachal Pradesh / Arunachal Pradesh dispute / South Tibet dispute talk page, you might be interested to participate to the following poll. Thanks, --Pseudois (talk) 04:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Jfruh, Since you seem to be a rational soul and know about the « Byzantine » (no pun intended !) subtelties of cultural categorization, I’m writing to draw your attention on the fact that some Wiki-Boeotians wants to delete the « American of Levantine-Greek Orthodox Christian descent» category Your help in the current « deletion debate » would be appreciated

Cordially,

--B.Andersohn (talk) 16:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Request you to provide your opinion regarding the inclusion of candidates in an infobox of an ongoing by-election here. Thanks. Ali Fazal (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Baldwin II, Latin Emperor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gertrude of Flanders. 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) 11:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jeff Knurek, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Magician. 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) 10:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Jfruh. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Jfruh. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Jfruh. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ballrmap.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 08:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Balmetromap.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 08:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The file File:Buffalo Metro Rail map (2004).png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned rail map.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated files)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated files)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Jfruh. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Crenshaw/LAX Line (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Wye

Green Line (Los Angeles Metro) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Wye

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You deleted an item I posted on the LA Metro Purple line extension article. I'm new here at Wikipedia and thought this might be a good way to see what I'm doing wrong. I added this because I thought that for all the $billions spent on this project, it's not going to affect congestion very much. I've driven in LA a couple of times and would do just about anything to avoid it; I'd love to take a train. But it appears most people in LA like to drive (slowly) in their cars. So here's one more project we're all paying for (including a $100 million from the feds last November.) that is not doing much to change anything. VMT is reduced by less than one percent, according to the LA Metro's study.

I thought you had an excellent point when you asked where the VMT was reduced. It will be reduced in the so-called "Study Area," a 38 square mile area around the train line. Wilshire Blvd. is the major road in this study area. (The total LA Metro area is 4,850 square miles). I found this info in the EIR released by LA Metro on p. S-24. http://media.metro.net/projects_studies/westside/images/final_eir-eis/Executive%20Summary%203-19-12.pdf Is it worth my time to rewrite this? Adding the info I've listed above? Thanks for your help. Evilleavenger (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the requested move of A Line (Blue) (Los Angeles Metro) and other Metro pages. Since you had some involvement with pages related to A Line (Blue) (Los Angeles Metro) and others, you might want to participate in the discussion if you wish to do so. Lexlex (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of tram and light rail transit systems#eBART . Should this system be categorized as "light rail"? You might be interested in participating, I saw you approached this subject at the talk page of List of United States light rail systems by ridership in the past. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 06:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey - I've just checked who edited the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, just letting you know that a Repeal Bill has been published, I've thrown up a rough and ready Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 (Repeal) Bill article, in case you want to keep an eye on it. doktorb _words^deeds 22:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate it! --Jfruh (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, you recently made the following edit: [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=K_Line_(Los_Angeles_Metro)&oldid=1116570286

While the station is definitely covered elsewhere in the article, I feel it is important to mention the Expo/Crenshaw connection given how important of a station it is poised to become as a transfer point. For instance, the C Line (Los Angeles Metro) page currently discusses in the lead how the LAWA shuttle *is at Aviation/LAX*; the K Line lead also mentions Aviation/LAX when it discusses the C-to-K Line Link. Because the point is a *transfer*, the station of transfer should be mentioned; I can't think of any Metro leads at the moment which discuss a line transfer within them but don't mention the station.

I don't want to get into an edit war/reversion war, so please consider reverting your edit, or at least discussing this further. Amyipdev (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

None of the current Metro leads discuss a simple Metro line-to-Metro line transfer at all, actually. I think transfers to the LAX shuttle are a different category of thing. Similarly, the K-to-C shuttle is sort of an extension of the current K line rather than an ordinary transfer per se. But, for instance, the C Line article lead doesn't explicitly mention transfers to the A or J Line, the G Line article lead doesn't call out the connection to the B Line at NoHo, etc.

I just think in general naming individual transfer stations is a level of granular detail that doesn't belong in the lead of the article, especially given that we do discuss the transfers and what stations they take place at in the body of the article. The lead is not meant to provide all the info that's in the article. Part of the problem is that the K Line article is the evolutionary descendent of the article about the Crenshaw/LAX project and the lead could probably use a refactor to make it more like the other Metro articles -- it honestly still has too much stuff about its construction history that should rightfully be in the history section. I am going to take a stab at this later today. Please hold off until I do that and then let me know if that addresses your concerns.. --Jfruh (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, please let me know here when the change comes - watchlisting hasn't been working for me. Amyipdev (talk) 20:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Made the edits. Ended up rearranging quite a bit. I think it's more in line with the other line articles now and has less leftover prose from when the line was under construction. --Jfruh (talk) 03:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I feel like, especially with how much is going on with it, the lead could be longer; it seems a little short, not based on anything but just a feeling. I feel like we could put a little more information into it. Overall though, looks great! I clarified that the under-construction connection to the C Line is being made through a wye, since you kept the construction info in the lead. Amyipdev (talk) 01:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

sorry for replying after so many years here: Talk:South Africa at the 1904 Summer Olympics. Arorae (talk) 11:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. DS (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you put the wrong Twitter link in there but I'm assuming this is about the Medicaid article vandal? Thanks for locking the page! Jfruh (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just waving "hi" as another Josh on Wikipedia -- I've been here almost as long as you have, I've been reading you maybe longer, and I never noticed you shared this minor addiction with me also. (I noticed you on bsky.) --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 23:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ha! Hi back at you! Gotta be a comics/Wikipedia overlap, right? (The Mark Trail article has one of my favorite sentences on Wikipedia, "His assignments inevitably lead him to discover environmental misdeeds, most often solved with a crushing right cross," which I consider it my holy duty to protect from killjoy editors. Jfruh (talk) 01:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That ones way worth saving! I'll watch the page. Oh those killjoys. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 03:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! I've been noticing that you've had quite a few requests for changes to the route diagram templates for LA Metro. I was curious if there were any more that you may still have that I haven't got to yet at the time of me writing this comment. Thank you! --OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 02:24, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey there! Thanks for reaching out! And thanks for all the work you do on the LA Metro pages -- definitely has not gone unnoticed. I actually had been planning to post on the G Line talk page a question about whether we should delete Warner Center from the diagram. I've never really been able to get my head around the syntax for those diagrams (if you know a good primer with resources please point me at it!) so I appreciate your work on thoes.

My one request is actually more of a judgement call than a technical request. In my opinion the Redondo leg of the C Line that will become part of the K Line after 2024 should be on the current K Line diagram. I understand the impulse behind it but I think if you come into the diagram cold without knowing all the details of upcoming changes, it would be quite confusing, perhaps giving the impression that the K Line is currently running in two disconnected segments the way the L Line used to. But this is probably something that should be opened to discussion on a talk page. --Jfruh (talk) 02:42, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh! That's something that I've actually already implemented. I do however also think making the K Line "continue straight" on the combined template for all the lines is also a good idea, one that I've also had ever since I made that change as well, and shouldn't be controversial, as well as future-proofing. Thanks for your input! --OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 06:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm, I'm still seeing it the old way (with the C Line stations on the diagram)? Unless I wasn't making myself clear -- I think the K Line diagram should only show the route through Aviation/Century, with an arrow or something showing its future connection. Agree with your take on the combined template though. --Jfruh (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, I see. Yeah, I had also tried to implement something like that previously, but it was reverted by RickyCourtney because their rationale was that it was such a critical portion of the line that it didn't make sense to collapse it. That being said, I personally think this current iteration looks better, simply because it shows the intention behind altering the service patterns to have the K Line take over the western portion of the C Line once the connection opens next year. --OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 21:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]