Mountdrayton

Welcome!

Hello, Mountdrayton, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

MOS stuff

Hey there, just so you know, it's not necessary to change dates from a "November 5" format to a "5 November" format. Both are acceptable. Cheers, Murderbike (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

There's also a setting in your "preferences" that controls how Wikipedia displays dates to you. - JasonAQuest (talk) 01:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

March 2008

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Michael Leunig worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Gillyweed (talk) 01:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know that your "experiments" on the page David Kindersley were absolutely spot on. Thanks and well done Motmit (talk) 08:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a tip - put something on your user page. Red user names come second to IP numbers as questionable editors - Regards Motmit (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Max Plowman

Thanks for the useful edits there. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Blanking and deleting categories

Why? Why are you deleting categories, inserting redundant ones, and blanking at least one page? I don't understand the meaning of this. Please respond on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I also studied philosophy at university and earlier today I was reading a text on logic; I hope that is useful as well.

First off, let me clarify what might be a misunderstanding on your part: these ethnic categories are just that - they refer to a nationality of an individual, not his citizenship, per se. For instance, Albert Einstein is in several "American X," "German X," "Jewish X," and "Swiss X" categories. Clearly, the American ones only refer to citizenship, the Jewish ones only to ethnicity, and the German and Swiss ones to some combination of the two.

Personally, I am a bit put-out by the very notion of "British X" categories, but clearly if someone is a "Scottish X" he is necessarily a "British X" by virtue of the fact that Scotland is in Britain. As long as "Scottish X" categories exist, they are more particularly and precise than "British X" categories and should be used. I see no reason why someone should be a "British X" and a "Scottish X" since the latter is a subcategory of the former. (Should he also be a "European X?" Simply an "X?") This is my point about redundant categories. I honestly do not understand why you wrote "inserting new ones" on my talk as I never alleged this of you.

Finally, if you want a category deleted, removing all its members and blanking it is precisely what not to do. You can - and should - start a discussion about it. If you make the following type of allegation to an admin: "X category is empty, it's a waste." One of two things may happen: 1.) he will be diligent and discover why it is empty (if it is empty because you emptied it and blanked it without discussion, he will not delete it) or 2.) he will notice that it is empty and delete it on good faith that someone didn't come along and empty it himself without any discussion or consensus. If you do want everyone removed from "English/Scottish/Welsh X" categories and have them deleted, that is fine and well, but you should seek consensus first and follow what it dictates.

Please respond on my talk if you have more to say on the topic. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone left me a message on my talk asking me to take a look. I skimmed so I may be missing some nuance here. If there is an issue with a particular category or set of categories, the way to get it resolved is to have a discussion at the Categories for discussion (CFD) page. This avoids doing a great deal of work that others revert, and hard feelings generally, because you already have consensus to do the change when you go to do it. I think if you have issues with some of these CO categories you should discuss it at CFD and see where it takes you. But just randomly removing things, blanking things and the like is not likely to work. I hope you find this advice helpful. If you're not quite sure how to start the discussion up at CFD please ask for help. ++Lar: t/c 21:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Categories again

Re John Tunnard (and I notice you've done the same with other articles): I can't at this instant point you to the guideline, but it is the convention not to include a regional parent category (e.g. if someone's in Category:English artists, you don't need also Category:British artists).

I just read the discussion at User talk:Koavf#Categories. You may well be right logically, but it simply isn't the way it's done here.

For instance, check out Robert Burns, Stanley Baker and Arthur Quiller-Couch. Although they were all British, the categories solely refer to them as Scottish, Welsh and Cornish. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing some of your other edits, I'd also encourage you to follow the advice given above about British vs. English categories for people. You've continued to engage in what could be seen as disruptive behaviour by continuing to change many of these categories after other editors have tried to explain to you the normal conventions that are followed on WP. It's basically a futile exercise, since your changes will likely just be reverted. If you'd like to discuss how a category is applied, you can place a nomination at WP:CFD (the instructions are on that page). Please heed their advice, and this advice; doing so will keep you from not only hurt feelings but other types of trouble as well. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Any particular reason you're consistently ignoring this advice and continuing to make these kinds of edits? If I didn't know any better I'd begin to think you are using WP to make a point about the use of "British" vs. "English" or "Welsh". This, of course, would not be a good thing to be doing; is there is some other explanation? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is some other explanation. At the risk of being a bore, let me recite the history.

I have been working in the field of conscientious objection for over thirty years. I currently have at my finger tips details of some 10,000 British objectors, 7000 of whom I have studied in some depth. (This is quite apart from overseas objectors, a whole other story.) It is hardly surprising, therefore, that on entering Wikipedia my first attention should be turned to COs, and, more specifically, British COs. I was gratified to find that there is a category of British COs, not simply because of my personal interest, but also because, in contrast with some Wiki categories, "British COs" is capable of unique and precise definition: "Persons who have been liable to British military conscription and who have conscientiously objected thereto".

On examining the British list within its wider context, I found three problem areas. There were some British COs who had been assigned to a general CO category, together with miscellaneous COs of other countries; there were British COs with Wiki articles who had not been assigned to a CO category at all; and there were British COs who had been assigned to a sub-category of English COs. I first set about gathering in the British COs from the general category (This seems to have usefully encouraged someone else to allocate other miscellaneous COs to a relevant country category, on a similar definition to mine - "Persons who have been liable to X military conscription and who have conscientiously objected thereto". I then worked on bringing in the British COs in Wiki who had not been assigned to a CO category at all, including a few "red" names who had not yet achieved an article. This left the "English COs" for further consideration.

Now, whatever other differences there may have been between England and other parts of Britain, there has never been any specifically English (or Welsh, Scottish or even Irish) system of military conscription, so a definition "Persons liable to English military conscription etc" does not make sense, and to use it as a direct contrast with "British COs" would misleadingly imply that there had been such a specifically English system which needed to be carefully distinguished. I considered the potential counter argument that what might be meant was English persons liable to British etc, as distinct from Welsh/Scottish persons liable etc, but apart from the question as to whether there is much point in such distinction, the distinction is not capable of absolute definition - there is no legal definition of "English" nationality. (This does not mean, of course, that nothing in Wiki can ever be defined as "English"; "MPs for English constituencies", or "English local authorities", are perfectly logical and proper categories.) But to attempt to separate out supposedly English COs is more likely to create new problems rather than solve any supposedly existing ones. Certainly, when I took a closer look at the designated "English" COs I could not find them any more obviously English than others not so designated, and, indeed, some were decidedly problematic. Guy Aldred, for example, was born in England, but spent half his life in Scotland, his adopted home and workplace, even bequeathing his body to a Scottish hospital; his personal CO experience was during his time in England, but his contribution to the wider CO movement, particularly through the Strickland Press and The Word, was rooted in Glasgow. Confining him to "English", if it serves any purpose at all, seems designed to exclude him from the purview of someone researching either the wider British or the more specifically Scottish scene and to what purpose except to obfuscate - which surely cannot be Wiki's objective? I could quote numerous other examples, but, doubtless, a moment's reflection will bring to mind cases from your researches where "English" is a reductio ad absurdum.

With that in mind, I transferred the "English" COs to the "British" category, leaving the "English" sub-category empty - it had had only half a dozen or so apparently randomly selected entrries as against the by now 100+ British entries. No-one complained, and, indeed, someone put up a discussion point suggesting that the "English" category was redundant and suggesting merger with the British one. I replied explaining the history, with reasons; no-one else intervened, and after a week or so the English category disappeared. I thought, how civilised, how rational - a work well done, and continued to gather in yet more British COs.

Then Justin Koavf entered the scene, and, without any discussion at all, entirely unilaterally, not only recreated the "English" sub-category, but also created entirely new "Welsh" and "Scottish" sub-categories. Inevitably, they involved confusions and anomalies of the kind I have described, as well as misleadingly implying the concept of specifically English/Welsh/Scottish conscription to which one needed to object. Although he had consulted no-one, I attempted to engage him in dialogue, explaining my own ratio decidendi, and inviting him to explain his. His only response was to say, "Personally, I am a bit put-out by the very notion of British X categories", which, so far from being a ratio, is 'using WP to make a point about the use of "British" vs. "English" or "Welsh"', in other words, the same private prejudice with which you were tempted to charge me.

Unable, therefore, to engage, I attempted a compromise by leaving his sub-categories for whatever private purpose they served him, and retaining the consistent and logical British category so that serious researchers would neither be confused nor misled. Then Gordenofcartoon entered the lists and admitted, I "may well be right logically, but it simply isn't the way it's done here" - which, sadly, again lacks any ratio.

It is apposite also to remark that I have talked and corresponded with hundreds of British COs, including some on the Wiki list, with the families of COs, with fellow researchers and others, and no-one outside Wiki has had any problem with the overall terminology "British COs". Some people are frankly amazed that there should be any dispute, and it is certainly not helping the reputation of Wiki.

You have asked me whether I have "any particular reason". I have attempted to explain my ratio decidendi in as coherent a way as I can. Can you please explain your own ratio in supporting Justin Koavf and Gordonofcartoon in their insistence on English/Welsh/Scottish sub-categories without any explanation of what they are supposed to mean or how they are defined - as distinct from my own specific self-contained definition of "British COs"?

Exactly what is your ratio for defining Guy Aldred as "English", but his co-worker and successor John Taylor Caldwell as "Scottish", when Caldwell himself was happy for them both to be British?

Why was Justin Koavf permitted without comment unilaterally to create his sub-categories, whilst I am censured for merely attemptin to restore the status quo ante?

Why is it apparently fine to have one all-US CO category without subdivision into states, and one all-Australian CO category without subdivision into states, but not fine to have one all-British CO category without subdivision?

Finally, as to the category discussion procedure, I regret, that, accustomed as I am to logical reasoning, I could not make sense of the procedure page to which you gave me a link. Moreover, the examples cited seemed to be of a less complex nature than the British vs English/Welsh/Scottish CO scenario.

Mountdrayton (talk) 02:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I was specifically referring to an instance that had nothing to do with COs. It was an instance of you chaning "English musician" to "British musician". I could haul up the instance if necessary, but in my opinion it's old news that you probably don't particularly want to address. In the case of COs, I'm not so much interested in either position (I don't care one way or the other), but my point is that it's always best to use the talk pages to discuss issues like this, especially when other editors have asked you to stop. Regardless of your personal logic you use, disregarding others and going forward and making the changes that you've been questioned about can cause hurt feelings and does little to solve the issue, since it just results in reversions of any changes you make. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Another point of note: changing text from "he was born in York, England" to "he was born in York" is generally not a good idea in an encyclopedia which is used by non-British people since (1) there is more than one York, and (2) many readers won't know where "York" is, but seeing "York, England" will give them a better idea. This is generally true, but all the more so when the birthplace is mentioned before any statement of the person being English, British, or whatever. I realise this may not conform with what you think is logically the right thing to do or what is commonly done in the UK, but clarity is always a good thing. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

F. Henry Edwards

Please see Talk:F. Henry Edwards#Death sentence concerning your edits to this page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If you want to assert this, you must provide citations to independent, reliable sources, and not just assert it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you missed my above suggestion, so I'll restate it. You need to provide references for changes like this, especially when what you are asserting contradicts an already-existing source. If the sources disagree, then that can be discussed in the article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You hardly gave me time to respond to your earlier comment, and I was, in any case, distracted in the midst of completing my original edit to the F Henry Edwards article. I can best summarise the position thus:

The original article asserted a claim that Edwards was sentenced to death, but reprieved, as a Brtish WW1 conscientious objector. It cited as a source for this claim an article to be found on the web. That article itself, however, is unsourced as to this claim, and gives no particulars as to date, place, or other circumstances of such claimed sentence; nor does it state any specific alternative sentence. On the other hand, the matter of British WW1 COs formally sentenced to death, but reprieved, is one of the most closely researched aspects of that era of conscientious objection. The War Office records in the National Archives and the records of the No-Conscription Fellowship, the main British CO organisation, agree that in June 1916, in courts-martial on five separate, identified, days, a total of 35, fully named and identified, COs were court-martialled in France, for disobedience, and formally sentenced to death, but immediately reprieved, a sentence of ten years penal servitude being substituted. The matter was the subject of questions and comment in Parliament. F Henry Edwards was not among those 35, nor was he among a wider cohort of 42 named COs improperly shipped to France, from whom the 35 men sentenced to death were selected. There is no record of any other death sentences on COs at any time, and no-one has ever suggested that any such records were supressed.

It seems likely that the fears and rumours of the time that other COs might be sentenced to death has been extrapolated over time, like Russian scandal or Chinese whispers, into a purported fact that Edwards was so sentenced. On any clear view of the total facts, that is not the case, although proving a negative is always more complicated than proving a positive. After considering carefully how best succinctly to deal with this matter, I elected to delete the manifestly erroneous claim of sentence to death, however sincerely made, but, in order to indicate that the deletion was not arbitrarily made, to append a note to the reference citation pointing out that that article is unsourced and, indeed, erroneous.

I trust you will see, therefore, that it is the original version of the Wikipedia entry, and its attributed source, which were making an unsubstantiated claim, and it is I who have gone to contemporary sources to disprove it. It would raise the original claim to an undeserving level of apparent importance to convert an almost throwaway half a sentence into a whole paragraph of detailed refutation, as you imply I should.

I hope you agree.

Mountdrayton (talk) 23:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason I gave a second notice is you made the same edit I objected to after I posted my comment. I just assumed you didn't see it, so I posted again. I'm not doubting any of the facts of what you write about above; however, the bottom line is we just need a source. If it's "one of the most closely researched aspects of that era of conscientious objection", then surely there's a source that exists that lists the names of the 35 men in question. This could be used as a source to state in the article that although some sources claim he was sentenced to death (the magazine article), there is no record of this in the War Office. It's not that complicated an issue, really, but we can't make changes in WP based on our own personal knowledge unless we provide sources to back up that knowledge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed. Mountdrayton, read the WP:NOR policy. Personally, I think Fellowship Magazine is not the most authoritative of sources - small publication, that might exaggerate for polemical purposes - but nevertheless, overriding it on grounds of your own unpublished research is not on. External sources are not required to provide their own sources. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that's better. See, not so bad — now we have a source and it's sorted out. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

A further comment: In fairness, it should be stated that Fellowship is a thoroughly reputable magazine, being the publication of the US Fellowship of Reconciliation, founded 1915. Andrew Bolton, however, is not one of their own members, and it seems likely that he submitted the article on behalf of the RLDS, not a group with which the FoR would ordinarily have much contact. A link on the article led me directly to the RLDS rather than the FoR. Neither the RLDS nor Bolton have so far responded to my emailed comments on the sentence of death claim, a silence which may well speak for itself.

Mountdrayton (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Let me know if you ever hear anything about that, I'd be interested to know what they say. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

But, of course, WP:NOR needs bearing in mind. Private unpublished communications between Mountdrayton and RLDS/Bolton (and any editorial inference about their failure to reply) is completely inadmissable for use here per WP:NOR - unless they can point to usable sources. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes; I asked to be told simply out of personal curiousity, not for any editing purpose. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

My email to Bolton/RLDS was primarily for their information rather than in expectation that they could provide anything useful, whether for Wikipedia or any other purpose. So far, I have not even had so much as a holding reply. I referred to the comment in the Fellowship article that repetition of Edwards' experience as a CO was discouraged in US RLDS circles, and suggested that the reason might well be that Edwards was embarrassed by the version in circulation because the purported sentence to death at the core of it is untrue.

When I have more time I may write to the US FoR directly about the discrepancy in the article snd invite their comment as to the circumstances in which it was published.

Mountdrayton (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I have now received a reply from Andrew Bolton, the author of the Fellowship article, apologising that he has just returned from an extended trip abroad. He has conceded that the death sentence account handed down within RLDS and the family has no verifiable source and is contradicted by established sources on British CO death sentences. He is in touch with Edwards' son, and they are both keen to collaborate with me in refining the account of Edwards' CO experience as much as we can. This may be put up on the RLDS website, so that it can become a citable source.

Mountdrayton (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you should be very cautious about how this is organised; generally they take a dim view here of editors influencing the subject themselves by doing original research, then legitimising it by putting it online. (I'm not sure exactly where the boundary lies between this and acceptable source-based research, so have passed it on to WP:NORN for external advice).

It would certainly raise conflict of interest issues; if you've been involved in creating a particular account of Edwards' experience, WP:COI would certainly require that you don't add it to the article yourself. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Mountdrayton, that's very interesting. I think Gordonofcartoon's advice on its applicability to WP is sound. In any case, I think the article treats it fairly in the footnote as it stands. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Re minor edits

One other procedural point: I recommend you check out Help:Minor edit. The minor edit flag is reserved for completely uncontentious edits that require "no review and could never be the subject of a dispute" (e.g. correction of obvious spelling mistakes). Changes like altering or adding categories aren't viewed as minor, especially if they have already been disputed, and to mark major edits as minor is widely viewed as poor etiqette. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Help please

I am working on the Timeline of children's rights in the United Kingdom and wonder if you could please help me with citations to amplify details of call-up in 1942 and post-war peace time conscription. Thanks SJB (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this. You seem to have set yourself a mammoth task, not least because I imagine from your spelling that you are from the other side of the pond, as they say; it would also account for one or two other eccentricities. How did you get hooked on this particular topic?

That apart, I am also puzzled that, wide as your self-appointed remit is, you seem to have made it even wider. I cannot see that you have anywhere offered your own definition of a child. Under the UNCRC, as you will know, the age is set at 18. Yet a number of the cases and incidents you cite relate mainly, if not solely, to over-18s. Conscription in the UK is one such (about which you ask me), as it never applied to under-18s, except that, by voluntary arrangement, at the time of post-WW2 conscription, a boy coming up to 18 could ask for his call-up to be expedited if it would assist him to be released at a particular time to enter a university or college - a very minor marginal detail affecting a minuscule number of youths.

It may be that you are taking the view that until the change in the age of majority, which you refer to only as the voting age, whereas it is much more than that, you are taking the view that all persons under 21 were children. If so, you need to spell that out. Even with that, some of your examples seem to go beyond the children's realm. The Brixton riot, so far as I was aware of it, was primarily an adult affair, and I would not ordinarily expect to see it discussed in the specific context of children's rights.

On the other hand, though you have fascinatingly dug out some interesting early cases, I looked in vain for Denis O'Neill, who died in 1945 as a foster child in Shropshire, for Lady Allen of Hurtwood (incidentally the widow of Clifford Allen), whose letter to the Times you refer to in a footnote, but without giving her the credit, and for the Curtis Committee, all of which led to the Children Act 1948. I mention these simply because they sprang immediately and automatically to mind, without my having to turn to any works of reference ot the web, as I read through your timeline.

As you will see, I did some tidying up as I read through your screed, but before I go into the details of WW2 conscription, I need to know how you see it affecting "children".

Mountdrayton (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for the comments and edits. I've transferred your comments and my responses to the article talk page.[1]. SJB (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Having updated the Timeline about Kindertransport, and also noted in your posts an interest in Quakers and pacifism, I wondered if you were aware of the Quakers' excellent role in the rescue? --SJB (talk) 11:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW My Goodness! We seem to have a common interest in King Edwards School. My own truculent and inglorious career at KEHS ceased after another row with Head Mistress JRF Wilkes, bless her....

I digress however and have dropped in to ask if you can shed any light on the extraordinary bifurcation of the Scottish and English systems, after the 1964 Kilbrandon report.

Para 6 of the latest sentencing guidelines consultation states : The Children and Young Persons Act 1969 set out to expand separation (between criminality and welfare considerations) even further, in particular providing for an increase in the age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 14 years and providing for what has been called a “decriminalisation” of the juvenile court. However, this particular provision (and a number of other significant provisions) was never brought into force. It might hinge around the untimely surfacing of abuse allegations at Court Lees in 1967, when Roy Jenkins was Home Secretary.

The Scottish system, adopted from 1971, effectively removed considerations of criminality entirely from children's proceedings in court. There are, of course, problems with the Scottish system - indeed none can be perfect. However, the divergence is all the more remarkable in the light of the 'punitive' v 'welfare' debate over English juvenile justice, ignited by the 3rd report to the UN on CRC in October.

All good wishes for 2009.--SJB (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veraguinne (talk • contribs)

Derek Savage

Thanks for tidying up the Derek Savage article. Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 06:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

William David Davies

Hello, would you mind if I mentioned a few points? Thanks for adding some more wikilinks the other day - I wasn't sure all were needed, but views can legitimately differ on such points, so I left them (but fixed a couple of poor links e.g. Bangor is a disambiguation page. The approach to date formatting that appears to be in the ascendant is that dates should be left unlinked ie 25 December not 25 December. Whilst there is still an ongoing debate, thousands of articles have had dates delinked and I don't bother linking dates now in the articles I start. As there's no particular need to link the dates, I'd rather you didn't keep changing this. Secondly, Category:Welsh conscientious objectors is a sub-cat of Category:British conscientious objectors, so Davies should only be in the Welsh sub-cat, per Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories. Please don't add it back. Thirdly, it should be "References", not "Reference", even though only one reference is cited: see Wikipedia:Layout#Standard appendices ("The plural form of the section name should be used"). Fourthly, edit summaries would help! Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 01:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Alice Wheeldon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frederick Smith (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) 20:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7

Hi. When you recently edited Jack White (trade unionist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Public school (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) 10:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14

Hi. When you recently edited Yakoub Islam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guardian (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) 10:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Clement Parker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Canon and Communion

St Blazey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Celtic and Armenian

Dean of Birmingham (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Provost

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 04:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Charles Handley-Read, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Eastlake and Lingfield (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) 14:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited George Sinker, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Canon and Simla (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) 11:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Horace Alexander, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain (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) 00:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

George Newman (doctor) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to MD and FAU

Horace Alexander (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Naga and Sultanpur

Kees Boeke (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Queen Wilhelmina

Lionel Penrose (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Reading

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Russell Brain, 1st Baron Brain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to DM and King George Hospital

Ruth Harrison (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Hackney

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

John Maxton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Britain

Kenneth Hudson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Harrow

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nicholas Winton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German (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) 11:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Bridgeman (sculptor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blitz (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) 14:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Committee of 100 (United Kingdom) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Waldo Williams, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lyneham (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) 13:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wythall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RN (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) 11:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited George Maitland Lloyd Davies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Welsh (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) 23:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Augustus Clifford, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Windsor (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, 24 August 2013 (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 Martin of Tours, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dick Sheppard (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) 09:21, 10 November 2013 (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 Fenner Brockway, Baron Brockway, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Britain and Irish (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) 09:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thomas Edmund Harvey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain (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, 10.4.0.34 (talk) 09:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Arnold Stephenson Rowntree, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MP (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) 09:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Horace Alexander, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cranbrook School (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) 08:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Charles Freer Andrews 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 my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• '''Charles Freer Andrews''' (12 February 1871, [[Newcastle upon Tyne]] (England) - 5 April 1940, [[Calcutta]] ([[India]]) was an

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Charles Freer Andrews, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Natal (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) 08:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited George Tomlinson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Minister of Works (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) 08:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited HM Prison Kingston, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain (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) 08:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Clifford Allen, 1st Baron Allen of Hurtwood, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Labour. 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) 09:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anita Augspurg, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bavarian and International Students Association. 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) 09:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William Moore Ede, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages William Temple and Daily News. 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) 10:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Edward Hicks (bishop)

added links pointing to William Temple and Daily News

Ernest Barnes

added links pointing to William Temple and Daily News

Frank Woods (bishop of Winchester)

added links pointing to William Temple and Daily News

Hewlett Johnson

added links pointing to William Temple and Daily News

Hubert Burge

added links pointing to William Temple and Daily News

Frederick Brotherton Meyer

added a link pointing to Daily News

Jerome K. Jerome

added a link pointing to Daily News

John Drinkwater (playwright)

added a link pointing to Daily News

William E. Orchard

added a link pointing to Daily News

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Richmond Sixteen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gainsborough. 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) 23:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Richmond Sixteen

Hello, Mountdrayton. Many thanks for your corrections. Moonraker (talk) 14:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Richmond Sixteen, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Seaford, Herbert Asquith and Ely. 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, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tavistock Square, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages British and Tavistock. 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) 10:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Conrad Russell, 5th Earl Russell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Russell. 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) 09:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Barry Bucknell, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Camden and Labour Party. 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) 08:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rudolf Redlinghofer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Krems. 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, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Alexander Baxter

Hi Mountdrayton - thanks for your recent edits, they improved the readibility. Just one query, you changed the sentence from On 21 March Baxter and William Little, another objector, refused to put on detention clothing to .. refused to put on Army uniform. The source for the detention clothing was Objectors on trial, Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3044, 3 April 1917, Page 8. Is there some evidence to the contrary?. Regards NealeFamily (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation - it makes perfect sense, so I will leave it as is. There was quite a bit about Baxter in NZ media at the time - this website http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast is a useful resource if you are ever needing to find NZ related material. The one item I am trying to confirm now in the article is the names of those officers and NCO's he was under while in detention in France. The names Baxter gave do not appear accurate. Regards NealeFamily (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marcus Ward & Co., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Society of Antiquaries. 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) 11:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Harry Emerson Fosdick, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Montclair. 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) 10:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Riverside Church, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Britain and Dick Sheppard. 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) 09:30, 28 October 2015 (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) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oxford House (settlement), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MCC. 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) 10:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Conscientious Objectors in Birmingham in WW1, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dorchester. 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) 10:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Minnie Pallister, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Labour. 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) 10:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Laura Knight, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andover. 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) 09:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Mountdrayton. 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)

MfD nomination of User:Mountdrayton/Mohisin Khan

User:Mountdrayton/Mohisin Khan, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mountdrayton/Mohisin Khan and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Mountdrayton/Mohisin Khan during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Mountdrayton. 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)

February 2018

Hello, I'm Gaia Octavia Agrippa. I noticed that you made a change to an article, John Stott, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 00:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Laurie Hislam, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Basque, Langham and PPU (check to confirm | 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) 09:32, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Mountdrayton. 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)

Disambiguation link notification for November 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Albert Meltzer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pioneer Corps (check to confirm | 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) 08:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

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) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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) 01:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)