User talk:Mballen

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Hyacinth (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Peter Seeger
Thanks for additional edits. The PS article tends to get hijacked by either his worshipers or his detractors. Cheers V. Joe (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Humanism
I appreciate your outlook on the topic of humanism and I think you are fundamentally in the right - but I would advise you to thread carefully on the page - sticking to using convincing arguments like the ones you have already given, but refraining from starting a revert war. I believe that the article is heading quickly towards somekind of dispute resolution and it would be best that your conduct be irreproachable so that it can't be used as an argument against you/us.·Maunus· ƛ · 15:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Maunus for your wise advice which I plan to follow to the best of my ability. You are right and I regret having allowed myself to be provoked by what I have experienced as the belligerent tone of some participants on the talk page. I would like to see an article emerge that touches on the various manifestations of humanism (or a representative selection, including existentialism and Catholic humanism), without being an advocate for any one of them. The relationship between the several definitions of humanism is fascinating and it would be wonderful if it could be even slightly unraveled even in the briefest way. (Since I first looked at the page, I have begun to change my mind about there being no relationship between them.) I even actually agree with OldMan that modern American secular humanism is the most common definition of the term (certainly in the USA) and ought to be given the most weight in the article.Mballen (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your point about the US is extremely good I am sure that humanism seen primarily as a secular ideology is pretty much only valid in the US! I had not thought of that. In Europe and Latin America at least this meaning of humanism is virtually unknown - in Latin America for example Humanism has traditionally been connected only to the catholic church, e.g. in the form of liberation theology. This means that in order to get the article to provide a global perspective of the topic other kinds of humanism must be included as per WP:Systemic bias. Excellent point.·Maunus· ƛ · 19:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I had no idea that in Latin America humanism is associated with liberation theology, how interesting!


 * I might add that the American manifestation of humanism, especially the 1930s variety, seems quite influenced by the prevailing culture of Protestantism, which tended at the time to be very anti-Catholic, though things may be different now.Mballen (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

John Lomax
Your recent contributions to John Lomax greatly improved the article. Nice work! Thank you! --Popiloll (talk) 13:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. But if it was you who removed the "unsourced" information, you should really put a "citation needed" notice in the text before undertaking to remove anything from the article. I believe I can source all my info. D.K. Wilgus, though (exaggeratedly critical of Lomax in my opinion) does stress that Lomax was the first significant scholar to collect using scholarly criteria, or to attempt (however imperfectly, as his critics allege) to do so, rather than collecting as a mere local historian, hobbyist, or antiquarian. It is important to keep this in mind when putting into perspective some of the rather harsh criticism of his immediate followers in the field that he, above all others, was largely responsible for founding.Mballen (talk) 14:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I saw that you mentioned something about Lomax collecting folk songs along the scholarly criteria of Kittredge but I couldn't find any source. OK I will try to remember to put a "citation needed" notice next time. Best regards. --Popiloll (talk) 11:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps that was an assumption on my part, since Lomax was Kittredge's protege, and Kittredge is credited with creating the criteria. It was Kittredge who impressed on Lomax that collecting was to be his future calling. I have now added a quotation from D.K. Wilgus to back up my point. Lomax, who was totally in awe of everything that Kittredge and Harvard represented, was certainly motivated by a desire to be taken seriously as a scholar, although in actual practice he has been accused of falling short. To tell the truth, this happens not infrequently even with scholars who come from more advantaged backgrounds, but Lomax's high profile led to his being raked over the coals with particular venom. Lacking an academic appointment in folklore (there weren't any), he was obliged to make a living by selling books commercially and by chasing after grants from foundations. The fact that he was quite successful at both (especially the latter) appears to have inspired a high degree of professional jealousy -- again something not unheard of even today.Mballen (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

American folk music revival
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 01:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no "usual practice" - some people tag uncited additions, some people revert them. There is a standard warning template for the latter which I used above. Of course, the policy pages keep changing over time, so it's always a bit hard to tell what is "preferred". Essentially, though, your criticism is of my editing style and will be ignored. Yworo (talk) 12:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice addition to this page of the Digital Library Pop Chronicles link. An editor tried to add it as part of a ref to the Kingston Trio article I've worked on extensively - I tried to give it more prominence as an external link because it's really good stuff and adds to this Revival page I know you have worked on. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 04:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I listened to the whole thing a couple of times so I could try to figure out what it was about and who was saying what. I agree that it is a valuable citation, from, as it were, the horses' mouths. Notice, too, how Time magazine, from the very very beginning was busy fanning the flames of internal dissention among folk music artists and fans. I especially liked re-hearing the Kingston Trio's "They're rioting in Africa".Mballen (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Pre-Romanticism
I just had doubts that it would ever have a page, since it was only linked from Rosseau's page and not even mentioned anywhere else. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it amazes me that this term has fallen into the memory hole. But I probably won't get around to making a page for it in the near future -- since I want to read more about how that happened first, and I have a ton of other stuff to read (and write) before I get to that. So it is not that important, for the nonce. I do hope that people leave pre-Romanticism in the Rousseau article, however, even without a backlink. When I think of all the scholarship that is being forgotten -- some of it quite valuable (one would have thought) it's sort of chilling.Mballen (talk) 02:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Lee Hays
Just thought I'd re-post this here; my Talk page is getting a tad cluttered -


 * Hello MB Allen -


 * Thanks for the note! I clarified the fact on 173's Talk page that I am delighted by the intelligent and constructive edits you and s/he have made to the Hays article. My sourcing request was in no way a challenge to the validity of the assertion but rather (as I said to 173)a desire to see all the Ts crossed in order to make the article rock-solid. FWIW - I concur that Time has never been a RS and especially under Luce was a crypto-fascist rag. It's just that I've seen too many good articles derailed by unsourced assertions that eventually get challenged and/or reverted by POV-pushers, esp. from both extremes of the political spectrum - and here I'd fear some neo-McCarthyite bagnging in and ruining the article. Maybe you've seen some of the comments under Weavers YouTube videos decrying Seeger and the group as red traitors and so on. You and I may well know that Luce was an interventionist Republican pro-business jerk, but the sourcing in the article makes the point incontrovertible.


 * Another note - I earlier reverted reference to Hays' alcoholism only because it, too, was unsourced. I remember that Doris Willens went into this in her bio, but I didn't have the book handy and couldn't access the parts online at GoogleBooks. I think that that too needs sourcing but IMHO should be in the article. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

looking for some help
I am trying to find an editor who knows the works of Empile Durkheim really well, as well as their roots or antecedents on Rousseau. Do you know anyone who can help me? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't know anything at all about Durkheim. But a friend of mine studied social science at U of Toronto (including Durkheim, whose name he mentioned to me in conversation), and when I see him I will ask him and try to get back to you. However, he may not know too much about Rousseau, unfortunately. Still, he may be able to point you in a fruitful direction. He seems to have the titles of good books on the tip of his tongue. Intuitively I would guess that there might be a connection through Kant, who was a self described follower of Rousseau -- another possible intellectual connection might be the positivism of August Comte, one of the founders of social science, though I don't know if Rousseau would have approved of Comte, I doubt it. I gather you are interested in the history of education? I don't know how much of the German school system was influenced by Kant, if at all, but it seems possible.Mballen (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is my reason: the Culture article is maybe 98% about the uses of the term "culture" today, which means it is mostly anthropology and cultural studies. But it has a historical introduction which has a couple of paragraphs each on the English antecedents for the modern use of the word (e.g. Matthew Arnold and E.B.Tylor) and the German antecedents for the modern use of the word (e.g. Kant - Herder - von Humboldt - Bastien). I know some people reject this idea of national traditions (as you point out, Germans can read French and vice versa) but i also see some sense in it. But IF we are going to say a bit about British and German antecedents, then I think it only makes sense to have a couple of paragraphs on French antecedents. I know that anthropologists often cite Rousseau and Durkheim, perhaps because both had totalistic notions of society, and of course both were critics of modernity in different but very close ways (alienation and anomie). I do not mean to open up a can of worms. The section of the article I am talking about currently has only four paragraphs and I am suggesting adding only two more, so this is not about an in-depth discussion of Rousseau and Durkheim (or Compte, I agree he is the critical link - not because Roussaeu would have agreed with him but because I think Durkheim was inluenced by both) or an essay on their relationship. It is about providing a little more historical context for the rest of the article, with links to the related articles (e.g. Rousseau, Compte, Durkheim). I hope it is clear now why I think someone who knows about both would be the right person for the job.

If what I have just written makes any sense to you, would you be able to write a paragraph on the distinct ways Rousseau and Compte looked at society, and see if your friend could rite a second paragraph on how Durkheim arose out of that milieu? Arguably, "society" might have ben a more important concept to these guys than "culture," but I think their interest in society, the questions they raised, their ways of conceptualizing it, had a real influence on 20th century ways of talking about "culture." I just think two such paragraphs would add necessary balance to this section, and thus add a lot to the article. Well, at least I hope you understand now why I asked. if you know anyone else at WP who might be able to help, please just pass this on to them. Thanks, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 11:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

double paragraph
Hi,

No problem. =} I just specialize in paragraphs in both polish and english Wikipedia. =} kocio (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

KT FA Nomination
Hello MBA - I know from our shared work on American folk music revival that you have done extensive work on Wikipedia on folk and related topics. As it happens, I've been the primary editor on the Kingston Trio article, which was recently nominated by user:Airproofing (and after the fact co-nominated by me) as a featured article. If you glance at the log - Featured_article_candidates/The_Kingston_Trio/archive1 - you'll see that it has not generated any significant review interest. Two reviewers have buzzed by and opposed the article's advancement. Their comments have not been especially helpful, and their examination of the article was cursory compared to what I had been led to expect, and in fact to what other nominated articles receive (just scroll through the list here: []). Since there is normally a 2 week time frame within which to critique and advance an article, if more editors do not review it the article will be archived as a nominee. That would be a shame. I have requested an assessment at the WP:ROOTS project of which KT is a part, but the KT was never folk enough to interest real folk music buffs and not pop enough (as opposed to, say, the Everly Brothers) to generate much interest there. While I surely do not wish to violate the WP:CANVAS rules, I intend to request objective assessment from some editors I have worked with on history and music articles. I know you've done extensive work with the real folk music articles. Don't know if you have the time to look at and evaluate it, but I think the article deserves a better fate than dying as a nominee due to neglect. I am quite sincerely interested in getting a fair shot at FA even more than I am in seeing the article promoted. If you're too busy or not interested, that's fine as well. There's still plenty of work to do on other folk-related articles. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 18:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Sensei,


 * I'll be glad to take a look at it. As far as I'm concerned, the KT was very important in getting the folk repertoire before the public and they certainly deserve an in-depth treatment. Mballen (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Book of the Courtier
I believe that at Baldassare Castiglione, you've inserted a footnote including a quote from Book of the Courtier. Could you expand your footnote to include a mention of the edition; in particular, of the translator and date? I ask because I wonder whether the "everyday" in the quote is a typo, a modern translator's execrable error, or a once-acceptable-but-no-longer-so usage in a 17th-century translation. Thanks. Ammodramus (talk) 00:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'll do that. I feel sure it is a typo on my part, though!. Thanks for pointing it out. I thought I had gotten the quote from June Osborne's book, but I on checking both the book and google search I see must have gotten it from another source, perhaps an article. I'm not even sure why I included it.


 * The Italian version has the quote at book IV. Erano adunque tutte l'ore del giorno divise in onorevoli e piacevoli esercizi cosi' nel corpo come dell'animo -- literally, "Thus all the hours of the day were divided into activities that were honorable and pleasant as much for the body as for the soul." Leonard Eckstein Opdyck's 1900 translation has: "Thus all the hours of the day were assigned to honorable and pleasant exercises as well for the body as for the mind." Not completely satisfactory! The Singleton translation would be preferable, but I cannot put my hands on it. I think Castiglione is alluding to a question that was much discussed at that time, namely, what kind of recreations could honorable people enjoy (in mixed sex groups) without being sinful? Mballen (talk) 03:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Lomax
You are probably watching my page but just in case, see User_talk:Sean.hoyland.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30
Hi. When you recently edited Alan Lomax, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry Wallace (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) 10:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eruca sativa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair (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) 12:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Noble savage
I've responded to the comment you left on my User talk page. Please take a look and respond there. Thanks. - Froid 22:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, again. I just copyedited and noted citations needed in the first few paragraphs of the Noble savage article. (Many more of each are needed.) As you'd mentioned having forgotten how to indicate citations needed, I'm writing to invite you to take a look at my latest work on that page, where you'll see examples. Best wishes, Froid 15:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eruca sativa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sativa (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) 12:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you IP:173.77.12.59 ?
The anon editor just "adjusted" your edits, which isn't permitted under Wikipedia talk guidelines so I reverted those portions. If that was indeed you, please undo my edit and explain that. If it wasn't, you may still revert my edit if you approve of the changes, but comment on that as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

It was me. I stopped being logged in for some reason.

Talk page guidelines
I suggest you read the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, particularly the User talk pages section. It states, in part: "Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

You may remove it but this is the internet and there is a permanent record of your incivil behavior.Mballen (talk)

January 2013
Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at The Twelve Days of Christmas (song), are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors. Please read NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As you yourself are the perpetrator of the vandalism, you are hardly in a position to judge. But no doubt you will be caught sooner or later.Mballen (talk)

Disambiguation link notification for February 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Welfare state, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Whig (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) 11:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Samantha Bumgarner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WPA (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) 12:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Blind Willie McTell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Gray (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) 20:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=582894240 your edit] to Harry Everett Smith may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Kurt Weill and Bertolt Brecht's opera Rise and Fall of the City of Mahagonny" upon
 * I fixed the bracket problem. I suspect that the problem was detected when you fixed one or more problems somewhere in the article, leaving one of the brackets in a lower section unpaired. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=582994569 your edit] to Harry Everett Smith may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 15&end=2006-9-21]) & , Krugman Associates (, [http://
 * 33474/ Doug Harvey, "Dismembering Harry Smith"], May 10, 2001, L. A. Weekly ,

Fixed, I believe. Mballen (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=583128307 your edit] to Harry Everett Smith may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s and 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page]. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=583756909 your edit] to New Criticism may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * the work of non-academic "critics" (or book reviewers) and not the work of serious scholars. citation needed  But the New Criticism changed this. Though their interest in textual study initially met with

Disambiguation link notification for November 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Harry Everett Smith, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Schema (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) 09:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Baldassare Castiglione
You seem to have damaged the fourth paragraph of Baldassare Castiglione - the first several words ("Early Italian humanism Since republics were") make no sense, and you added a "0becomes" in the middle of that paragraph. The rest of your edit looks good. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 03:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, will fix. Mballen (talk) 05:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Humanism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Enlightenment (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) 08:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paul de Man, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mary McCarthy (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) 09:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
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) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Heimat episodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mühlheim ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/List_of_Heimat_episodes check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/List_of_Heimat_episodes?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). 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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry
I'm Sorry I got mad at you over Alger Hiss.

CJK (talk) 22:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Manichaeism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Uyghur. 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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)