Bjoh249

Hello, Bjoh249, 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
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun game-like tutorial to help get you oriented editing Wikipedia)
• Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk 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 {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! We're so glad you're here! Jim1138 (talk) 05:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

William Strauss and Neil Howe are by far not the only experts on generations, and many do disagree with their findings. I am mainly pointing to their opinions on Gen X and Y here.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/03/24/singer.young.leaders/index.html

"History will mark 2011 as the year the baby boomer generation, which has so dominated American politics and society, first became eligible for retirement. But little is known about the new guard of American leaders, the Millennial generation, born between 1980 and 2005."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/08/60minutes/main3475200.shtml

There are about 80 million of them, born between 1980 and 1995, and they're rapidly taking over from the baby boomers who are now pushing 60.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/06/earlyshow/main4701671.shtml

Aaron Schock

http://www.usatoday.com/money/workplace/2005-11-06-gen-y_x.htm

"Who is Gen Y?

There is no consensus over the exact birth dates that define Gen Y, also known by some as echo boomers and millennials. But the broadest definition generally includes the more than 70 million Americans born 1977 to 2002. Generation X was born roughly 1965 to 1976. Narrower definitions put Gen Yers as those ages 16 to 27, born from 1978 to 1989. This narrower view is based on the thinking that as the pace of change in society accelerates, the time frame of a generation gets shorter."

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/25/millennials-overtake-baby-boomers/

http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2015/01/FT_generations-defined.png

The Generations defined

The Millennial Generation Born: 1981-1997 Age of adults in 2015: 18-34

https://www.uschamberfoundation.org/sites/default/files/article/foundation/MillennialGeneration.pdf

This report provides a summary of the research done on the Millennial generation since 2009. Generational cohorts are just one way to categorize a group of people with similarities—in this case, the era in which individuals were born and when they came of age. We will use the birth years of 1980 to 1999 here to define the Millennial cohort. However, sources are inconsistent, with as many as 21 different birth spans referenced. Today’s Generations Born Age (in 2012) GI Generation 1901–1924 88–111 Silent Generation 1925–1946 66–87 Baby Boom Generation 1946–1964 48–65 Generation X 1965–1979 33–47 Millennial Generation 1980–1999 13–32 Generation Z 2000– 12 and under Like every other generation, Millennials display generalized and unique traits.

http://www.gen-we.com/

"Millennials are the largest generation in American history. Born between 1978 and 2000, they are 95 million strong, compared to 78 million Baby Boomers."

http://www.millennialmakeover.com/Articles/PBP%20Obama%20continues%20to%20attract%20inspire%20millennials.htm

"They argue that his campaign pitch for public service - fine-tuned with the help of a chief speechwriter who is just 27 years old - was perfectly calibrated for the so-called millennial generation, meaning those born roughly between 1980 and 2000. "

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS145598+24-Jun-2008+PRN20080624

"Findings revealed that millennials, those born between 1976 and 2001"

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/A-Military-of-Millennials-04895/

"Few members of this generation, born after 1978, can recall a time when the Internet was not at their disposal."

http://www.abanet.org/lpm/lpt/articles/mgt08044.html

"Millennials Born 1977 – 1998 75 million"

http://www.wordnik.com/words/millennials

"Jeanne noted that "millennials" -- whom she defines as those born between 1977 and 1997 -- constitute about 38 percent of our current workforce. —The Huffington Post, “Justin Snider: Are Age and Experience Overrated When it Comes to Leadership?”

Symantec researcher Samir Kapuria knows a lot about how "millennials" -- employees born after 1980 -- use technology in the workplace. —Past Tech Trends & Products: Technology Live Archive

•Women are soon expected to make up half the US workforce and the so-called millennials, those born after 1980, are now one-third of the working population. —Stuff.co.nz - Stuff"

http://www.wisegeek.com/who-are-the-milllenials.htm

"The millennials are the group of people born between 1980-1995, or some stretch this from 1980-2000"

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-generation-y.htm

"What is Generation Y? Generation Y refers to the population group in the US born from somewhere around 1976 to around 2000. They are sometimes called echo boomers because some of them are the children of baby boomers. On the other hand, some Generation Y children, especially those born in the late 1980s or afterwards, may be the grandchildren of baby boomers. Other names for this group are the Millennials, the Internet Generation, and the abbreviated Gen Y or Gen Yers.

There are some vagaries in defining Generation Y, as it can encompass two generations. A child born in 1976, probably to a true baby boomer, could easily have a child born in 1996, 20 years later. There’s no official consensus on the beginning or end term of Generation Y, and the term may be considered as a pejorative one, just as the term Generation X is sometimes used in a negative sense. Echo boomer may be inaccurate too, since the real rise in birth rates that defines many boomers having babies is much more limited. This increase in birthrates, approaching levels of the last years of the baby boom is defined as between 1989-1993, a much smaller span than that which defines Gen Y."

https://thesocietypages.org/graphicsociology/2011/10/04/who-is-the-millennial-generation-pew-research/

Pew Research has created a tidy series of interactive graphics to describe the demographic characteristics of American generational cohorts from the the Silent Generation (born 1928 – 1945) through the Boomers (born 1946 – 1964), Generation X (1965 – 1980) [this is a disputed age range – a more recent report from Pew suggests that Gen Xers were born from 1965-1976), and the Millennial Generation (born 1981+ [now defined as being born between 1977 and 1992]). The interactive graphics frame the data well. They offer the timeline above as contextual background and a graphic way to offer an impressionistic framework for understanding generational change.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/11/04/when-each-generation-arrived-on-capitol-hill/

"Republican Elise Stefanik, as our Jaime Fuller reported Monday, will almost certainly become the youngest woman ever elected to Congress after voters in the 21st district of New York head to the polls Tuesday. When I read that piece, I wondered if Stefanik was the first member of the generation known as Millennials to make it to Capitol Hill.

In fact, she's not. She will, according to analysis of data from GovTrack.us, be the fourth member of the Millennial generation to be in the House. The first was Rep. Aaron Schock (R-Ill.), elected in 2008."

Aaron Schock was born in 1981 just a month after I was.

http://thehill.com/video/house/322981-reps-schock-and-gabbard-launch-future-caucus

Tulsi Gabbard and myself coincidentally share the same birthdate: April 12, 1981

Bjoh249 (talk) 07:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

The wiki articles on years, centuries, and millenniums, has the 2nd millennium and 20th century ending on December 31, 2000, and the third millennium and 21st century beginning on January 1, 2001. The commonly held thought of course is that the 2nd millennium and 20th century ended on December 31, 1999, and the 3rd millennium and 21st century began on January 1, 2000. That is of course RIGHT. Wiki also has the year 1001 beginning the 2nd millennium and 11th century as well, and all new centuries beginning with a 1 and so on. This is all wrong for so many reasons. I am going to post many articles here that back up my argument. I will start with this one: http://www.mindspring.com/~jimvb/year2000.htm

"The Millennium began with the Year 2000

There is an error at the beginning of the calendar

When the new millennium approached, people awaited the year 2000, except for those few that insist that the new millennium begins in the year 2001. Their reasoning is that the first hundred years are numbered 1 through 100, the second hundred years are numbered 101 through 200, and so forth, so that the twentieth century goes from 1901 to 2000, and the twenty-first century does not start until 2001 January 1. I say instead that it began on 2000 January 1, and have several different ways of looking at this:

Time is Continuous The problem with regarding 2001 January 1 as the start of the New Millennium stems from the beginning of the calendar. The first year is called 1, or 1 ACE (or AD). It may seem natural to call the first year the year 1, and indeed it may make sense if years were like books which are numbered 1, 2, ... There is no fraction of a book to be concerned about. However, with years, there are fractions of a year: months, hours, milliseconds and so forth. Time is measured on a line, not on a series of discrete points. The starting place on a line is not 1. It is 0. Therefore, the starting point on the time line should be called 0, not 1.

The Calendar starts with the Year 0 It is this failure to recognize that 0 is the origin on a line rather than 1 that causes several problems with our numbering schemes. The Romans did not have a zero; their zeroless Roman numerals hampered the development of Roman mathematics, for they needed a different symbol (C, X, I) for each tens place because otherwise "I" could mean one, ten, or a hundred. It was not until the Arabic notion of zero and of putting a zero in a place that does not hold anything came to the Western world before it could advance technologically. Then a hundred became 100.

However, the BC and AD systems were set up before this happened. As a result, there is no year 0 in the traditional system. The year 1 BC is followed by 1 AD. This does not make sense, since -1 and 1 are not adjacent numbers; 0 is between them. Logically, our calendar should start with the year 0 (what we usually call 1 BC). It should start on 0 January 1 at the start of midnight.

If one starts our calendar with the year 0, then the first century is 0-99; the second one is 100-199, and so forth. The twentieth century is then 1900-1999. The present year 1999 is the two-thousandth year of the Common Era. It is true that the new millennium starts with the 2001st year, but that year is not 2001; it is 2000. So the new millennium begins with the year 2000.

How Old Are You? It helps to look at your own life. When you were born, you were not 1 year old, were you? You had to wait a year until you were 1. You were in the first year of your life, but that did not mean you were 1 year old. I started the second half-century of my life when I turned 50, not when I turned 51. At that time, the earth had revolved around the sun exactly 50 times.

Likewise, the calendar completes two thousand years of time on the midnight between 1999 December 31 and 2000 January 1.

Computer Programmers

There is a way of characterizing people by programming languages depending on when they consider the millennium to begin and whether they assume a year 0. They are:

If you say that there is no year 0 and that the millennium begins in 2000, then you're a "short-changer". If you say that there is no year 0 and that the millennium begins in 2001, then you're a FORTRAN programmer. If you say that there is a year 0 and that the millennium begins in 2001, then you're a BASIC programmer. If you say that there is a year 0 and that the millennium begins in 2000, then you're a C, C++, C#, or Java programmer, or a mathematical logician.

This is in analogy with the way these languages treat arrays (and the sequence of years can be considered to be an array), as in the following:

FORTRAN DIMENSION YEAR(2000) C YEAR(1) and YEAR(2000) are valid. YEAR(0) is not valid. C YEAR(2000) is the first two millennia. The third millennium starts with YEAR(2001).

BASIC Dim Year(2000) Rem Year(0) and Year(2000) both make sense. This Dim statement defines 2001 values.

	 Rem The next year after this array is 2001, which is when the third millennium begins.

C, C++, C#, or Java (Don't use any object-oriented features) int year[2000]; // year is defined from year[0] to year[1999]. If you use year[2000] you may bomb your computer. // The next millennium starts with year[2000] which requires additional dimensioning // to make valid. The C, C++, C#, and Java version seems naturally the best (see "Ordinal Number argument below"). That corresponds to there being a year 0 and to 2000 being the start of the Next Millennium.

Ordinal Number argument In set theory, in transfinite ordinal theory, each (ordinal) number is defined to be the set of all the previous ones. Thus 5 = {0,1,2,3,4}. That defines the finite numbers. The set of ALL the finite numbers is w, the first transfinite or infinite number. The set {0,1,2,3...,w} is then w + 1, and then comes w + 2, ..., w2, ... Now certainly the first infinite number is NOT w + 1. It is w, even though all its elements are finite. So in the same way, 2000 is the first year of the new millennium. 2000 is the set MM of all numbers with three digits or less or with four digits where the first one is a 1. Just as w is not a finite number, so 2000 is not in MM, which represents the first two millennia. So 2000 is in the Third Millennium.

Most places celebrated the new millennium on 1999 December 31/2000 January 1. In fact, most of the good places were booked for this evening years in advance (that is, until the travel industry hype and prices drove people away). There were numerous openings for cruises, hotels, and parties on 2000 December 31. The biggest displays were on the night of 1999 December 31.

Jim Blowers

Revised on 2000 January 7, just 7 days after the New Millennium began. Revised again on 2003 December 27."

Sorry, I couldn't get this next article to format on here correctly, but you can also read the article in the link Duh!:

http://www.projectpluto.com/no_zero.htm

"The following is an e-mail concerning the 'is there a year 0' issue, sent to me by Sean Oberle in response to some comments about 'Y2K' made on my calendar page. It is published here by permission.

The article has also appeared in a few forums such as this one, but forums change rapidly; the above link is ephemeral.

Hello,

Good to see another person who rejects this "no-year-zero" clatter. On your web site, you write:

  "...The system was established by the sixth-century scholar Dionysius

Exiguus ('Dennis the Small'). About two centuries later, the English historian Bede began the practice of counting numbers before 1 AD as "BC" years. * Since the concept of zero and of negative numbers was unknown to him, he simply put 1 BC as the year before 1 AD, with no intervening year zero."

You are on the right track Two historical facts support your argument:

(1) Dionysius measured from incarnation, not birth. Though a theological oversimplification, think of incarnation as conception. Dionysius, significantly, set incarnation (and birth incidentally) in the year before the year he called 1 AD.

(2) Dionysius set up his AD system to keep track of 19-year cycles related to the date of Easter year to year. The first year of his first cycle he also set in the year preceding the one he called 1 AD

Both his benchmark (incarnation) and what he counted (19-year cycles) are set one year before 1 AD. It is clear that he thought of 1 AD as the second year of his count in the same way that we think of 1 a.m. as the second hour. And in the same vein, though the civilian clock "contains no zero" (starts with 12), the lack of 0 a.m. does not "prove" 1 a.m. is the first hour. (What, does the day start an hour earlier for scientists and soldiers because their clock contains a zero?) Similarly, the lack of 0 AD does not "prove that we must start counting with 1 AD."

Dionysius thought of 1 AD as his second year, and so should we. Since 1 AD was his second year, by extension, 1999 is the 2000th. (Saying the millennium changes at 2001 is as factually wrong as saying Hitler invaded Poland in 1940.)

In any event, for your enjoyment, I paste below an article I've written which explains it all in more detail.

Enjoy:

Midnight Is Not at 1 a.m., Now Is It?

                        by Sean Oberle

   When it comes to the debate over 2000 vs. 2001 as the first year of

the next millennium, there are three types of people (excluding those who just don't care). Those who correctly believe it is 2000, but have no idea why except that is what they've always thought. Those who think it is 2001 because they've fallen prey to that 'there's no year zero trap. And those of us who know it is 2000 because we've looked at the historical evidence and realized that the 'no year zero' clatter is just a red herring.

   In case you haven't heard this no-zero pitfall, here it is: 'There

was no 0 AD, so the first year you count is 1 AD. Since a millennium is 1,000 years, the first two millennia were 1 to 1000 and 1001 to 2000. Therefore, the third millennium does not start until 2001.' All very simple. All very tidy. But then again, 'The earth looks flat; therefore, it must be flat' is very simple and very tidy...and very wrong.

   It's not that the logic of the no-zero folk is bad - it's perfectly

good logic. It's that they apply their logic to a faulty premise. To get at their faulty premise, I'll start by asking: Why must 1 AD be the first year we count? Why must the count start with either a 1 or a 0? After all, when counting hours of the day, we start with 12. Isn't it possible that our calendar measures years the same way that the civilian clock measures hours, so that both 1 AD and 1 a.m. are tied to second not first, units? It's not just possible, it's the truth.

   You see, we measure time in two ways. The first I call Current

Count, which we use to denote the time currently occurring. An example of Current Count is the first day of a month getting a 1. Current Count is what the no-zero folk wrongly assume the AD calendar does - that's their faulty premise.

   The second I call Time Passed, which we use to tally the time that

has passed before the current point. An example of Time Passed is an hour of the day - 1 a.m. is tied to the second hour of the day. We also use it with peoples' ages - a child is called 1 during the second year of life. Note that it is the second unit, not the first, that gets tied to a 1. Note that I wrote 'tied to' not 'designated with'.

   And now that we know there are two ways to measure time, the

assertion that 'there was no year zero' is a cop-out. First, there is rarely a zero in Time Passed - there is no 0 a.m. on the civilian clock. Second, the concept of zero was not much known in Europe when the AD calendar originated. Zero came from the East centuries later, so the lack of 0 AD may mean only that zero was not available.

   But the lack of 0 AD does not prove that 1 AD is the first year any

more than the lack of 0 a.m. on the civilian clock proves that 1 a.m. is the first hour of the day.

   Now, Time Passed and Current Count are equally valid;  they are just

arbitrary conveniences that fit particular circumstances. But our calendar has been only one or the other since it began. That means that it doesn't matter how I think the years should be tallied. It doesn't matter what the no-zero folk think...or the good people at the U.S. Naval Observatory...or the kid who bags my groceries.

   What matters is what the fellow who set up the AD calendar was

trying to do. If he set up Current Count, then the no-zero folk are right that the millennium starts in 2001. However, if he set up Time Passed, then 1 AD was the second year of his count, making 1999 the 2,000th year - meaning I'm correct in asserting that the next millennium starts when 1999 ends.

   The fellow who set up our calendar was named Dionysius Exiguus. That

translates from Latin to Dennis the Little, so I'll call him Dennis. He was a Scythian monk living in Rome in the 6th Century. He set up the AD calendar while figuring out a system to tell when Easter should occur year-to-year.

   Dennis adapted a 19-year cycle of Easter dates. He set up the AD

system counting from the incarnation of Christ. He tied the cycles to his calendar, and came up with a matrix of Easter dates. We don't use that matrix, but we still use his AD calendar. Therefore, the first year that he counted with HIS calendar should be the first year that we count. Let's try to figure out what year he counted first.

   A key to clearing up a lot of misunderstanding on this subject is in

correcting one crucial but common error. Dennis was NOT measuring time from Christ's birth. He was measuring from Christ's incarnation. People read incarnation and assume it means birth. It does not. The incarnation occurred 9 months before Christ's birth. While technically wrong theologically, think of incarnation as Christ's conception. (Actually, miraculous incarnation takes the place of sexual conception in Christian theology.)

   The next step is being aware of one of the existing calendars that

Dennis worked with. It was the Roman calendar that measured from the supposed founding of Rome. Its years are identified by AUC, which stands for the Latin phrase ab urbe condita, which loosely means 'from the city's founding'.

   The consensus of sources I've read is that Dennis calculated the

birth of Christ to have been in 753 AUC, so he deduced that the incarnation must have occurred 9 months prior to December in March 753 AUC. Significantly, those sources also say that Dennis designated the following year to be 1 AD. Therefore, by Dennis' reckoning, Christ was incarnate during the year preceding 1 AD.

   Dennis must have been counting 753 AUC as the first year of his

system just as we count 12 a.m. as the first hour of the day. After all, since he said he was counting years starting with incarnation, why would he have excluded the year in which he thought incarnation started? Reasonably, he would have included all years during which he thought incarnation occurred, making 1 AD his second year.

   Need further evidence that 1 AD was the second year? While we don't

use Dennis' Easter-dating system, it also demonstrates which year he deemed the first. Remember, he tied the Easter system to his AD calendar. The Easter system consisted of 19-year cycles. Every author I've read agrees he designated 532 AD as the first year in a new cycle. But 19 is a factor of 532 (19 * 28 = 532), meaning that if 1 AD were his first year, then 532 AD would have been last, not first, in a cycle. The previous year, 531 AD, was the last year in a cycle, meaning that his calendar counted 531 'AD years' plus another.

   Where's that missing year? Logically, it must be 753 AUC, or in

modern terms, 1 BC. Therefore, 1 AD is the second year of Dennis calendar, and, by extension, 1999 is the 2,000th. That means that when 1999 ends, that 2,000 years will have passed. The third millennium begins on January 1, 2000.

   But wait, you say. The year before 1 AD was 1 BC, and BC means

'Before Christ.' Isn't that significant? No. The BC system was developed hundreds of years after Dennis set up his calendar. The BC system has nothing to do with when Dennis thought the incarnation began.

   But wait, you say. Dennis calculated the birth of Jesus wrong, and

the 'real third millennium' already has started. True enough, but that's a different issue. Dennis' calendar is what it is even if he based it on a faulty calculation. We are looking at when that calendar has ticked off 2,000 years.

   But wait, you say. Don't some people say Dennis set Jesus' birth in

1 AD? Yes, some do say that, but the combination of two facts suggests they are wrong. First, most authoritative sources I've seen say Dennis set both incarnation and birth in the year before 1 AD. But, I acknowledge, authoritative consensus does not assure correctness, so: Second, look back at the paragraph about the 19-year cycles. The year before 1 AD started his cycles, and he tied his cycles to the start of his calendar.

   But wait, you say. The U.S. Naval Observatory and other prestigious

authorities take the no-zero side. So what? Prestige and authority don't make them correct. The USNO and others also say that Dennis was counting from Christ's birth and that he set Christ's birth in 1 AD. Both points are wrong.

   You probably are seeing that there are some pretty desperate no-zero

defenses. That's because some no-zero folk don't want to give up. No-zero is so simple and tidy. It's pleasurable for no-zero folk to dazzle friends with the appearance of being in the know. Nonetheless, like flat-earthers, they are wrong.

   So, Mr. and Ms No-Zero, if you insist on clinging to your irrelevant

no-zero argument, then be consistent. Don't celebrate the new millennium at 12 a.m. January 1, 2001. Wait an hour until 1 a.m. After all, there's no 0 a.m. on the clock, and by the no-zero logic, midnight MUST be at 1 a.m. Sure, everyone else will think you're silly, but you can take comfort in the illusion that you're correct.

-- Sean Oberle Vice President of New Products Washington Business Information, Inc. 1117 N 19th St, Ste 200, Arlington, VA 22209 Voice: 703/247-3429; Fax: 703/247-3421"

Hi Bjoh249 please go to the Generation X Talk page. I am proposing that the years be changed from 1961-1981 to the early 1960s to the early 1980s because the years are still in dispute. Please state if you agree or disagree for the proposed changes, give a brief reason why and add any sources if you like. I am not asking for you to agree with me. I just want to form a consensus. Thanks for your participation! Educatedlady (talk) 06:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Generation_X

Creativesoul has now reworded the generation x with more 1961-1981 dates. She added dates for canda and australia. Check out the pages. I really dont know what to do with the user. 75.148.160.76 (talk)

He finally just reworked both the Generation Y and the Generations page to a less biased wording. he is determined to have his way somewhere though. He is a loon.Bjoh249 (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Bjoh I feel the same way about the centuries and millenia should start with '00 and end in '99 instead of '01 and '00, but unfortunately the people whom created this website had there own opinion about how the system of time works, and so we must go along with there inaccuracies, but we will both always know that we thought right, I am also with you on the generation X dispute — Phoenix500 (talk) 10:41, 09 June 2011 (PDT)

Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. You must not copy and paste text from sources you find on the web into articles as you did in the article Nicholas Waggoner Browning. I have removed the infringing text, but the material you copied is subject to copyright, as is almost everything on the web, and when creating or expanding articles, you should completely rewrite the information from the source using your own words. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hugo Soto-Martinez, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia. 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) 06:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Four-state area, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KFSM.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply