text:
Talk:Originality

This page was proposed for deletion; consensus was to keep. See Votes for deletion/Originality. Postdlf 21:25, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Patent law
The article had the phrase following the line about U.S. patent law:
 * with the caveat that an invention may be original if a previous inventor had developed the same thing but not made it public, or had developed it in another country and not introduced it into the U.S.

I'm pretty sure this is not true. In the U.S., patents are granted on a "first to invent", not a "first to file", basis. --Fastfission 00:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

In Our Time
Rich Farmbrough, 03:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

A Broader View
Originality is an event that happens to an individual, and then if they express or communicate elements of that event to another person or persons, that is an original work. Anything else is more or less derivative, but not entirely original. It's the event and the person that are important, though.

So if you have a whirlwind romance, take a vacation, or are whisked away by aliens in order to save their civilization, and you write a book about it, this is an original work, even if it resembles other works of fiction or non-fiction. (For that last one, I was thinking of "The Last Starfighter", but you get the idea.) The first two stories are not particularly new stories, but all the details are yours, and some of them simply cannot be conveyed in all their importance, vividness, and detail, in any communicated account. Different authors will emphasize different aspects of the experience, and the story told will be entirely different, due both to the nature of the events, and the nature of the persons who experience them. An original work of fiction is similar in that it may be inspired by yet another work of fiction, but the author creates an entirely novel set of experiences which make the original work exceptionally different from the work which inspired it. That's pretty much how it works for copyrighted works, and now we can discuss patented inventions.

For patented inventions and originality, we have the nearly perfect example of the invention of Xerography by Chester Carlson. Dr. Harold E. Clark's opinion in this excellent Wikipedia page makes it clear that Carlson's invention was considered wholly original at the time, and we can speculate in hindsight that this might well be the result of his difficult life and his rather unique education and interests. In other words, he was a more-or-less solitary individual with a very unique set of experiences, so much so that one of his partners, Otto Kornei, left the partnership and abandoned a claim to a 10% share of all future revenues, 10 years before Xerography became a viable product. There might have been practical and pressing reasons for him to do so, as you can't eat or pay rent with such a promise, but that doesn't explain abandoning the project entirely. So Carlson struggled on roughly five years, until yet another person, Dr. Harold Clark, saw the potential of his efforts.

This broader view is important in a few ways, though this is hard to express at the moment. Perhaps a good example is the difference between my little philosophical lecture here, and the rather derivative material on the page it refers to. :D I'll get back to you on this, Gentle Reader. -- TheLastWordSword (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Originality's existence
Try to prove me originality exists. Becouse it does not, as everything is derrivative and there are no clear boundries when a derrivative work is considered original. PROTOZOARE (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Hocus or Messi's
Phone number again is it possible that But bro please find attached the same class because this video 🙏 I am niggger I — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:E805:5000:95A1:4FB9:6341:2A40 (talk) 04:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Originality


text:
Olsberg

Olsberg may refer to:

 * Olsberg, Germany, a town in Sauerland, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany
 * Olsberg, Switzerland, a municipality in Rheinfelden district in Aargau, Switzerland
 * Olsberg, Basel-Landschaft, a former municipality in Basel-Landschaft, Switzerland
 * Olsberg, France, a village, part of the commune of Breidenbach, Moselle

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Olsberg


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Biekko

Biekko
final (25/8/2) ending 03:56 16 April 2005 (UTC) (9:11 added to compensate for early closure)

Biekko (user page, contributions) is from Iceland. He is an ideal for Wikipedian: no wikiholic, no POV warrior, sticks with facts, helps with vandals. He is with us since Aug 23, 2003 and clocked 946 edits, mostly Iceland related (see user page for more details). I think he would be of great help to keep this corner of Wikipedia tidy. Pavel Vozenilek 18:51, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Candidate please indicate acceptance of the nomination here

Yeah sure, I accept this nomination. --Bjarki 19:20, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 19:00, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC) (and it should be noted that he has 3089 edits if you count is and enwiki)
 * 2) Carnildo 19:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Pavel Vozenilek 20:09, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Smári McCarthy 02:59, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) - Despite the lack of international involvement, I believe that Biekko will be a fine addition to the administration team. He has served the Icelandic Wikipedia well and is dedicated to the cause. en: might well enjoy and benefit from his help. The way I see it, the worst case scenario is that he does absolutely nothing, which despite being highly unlikely is completely irrelevant: There's no legal or standardized limit to the number of admins. There's no factual reason to deter people from this posting if people have proven worthy and committed at any rate.
 * 5) Support. The opposition is en: Wikipedia snobbery in my opinion. If we take into account his considerable work for is: (and we should take it into account) then it's clear he knows how the wiki works, and even if he isn't yet familiar with every last detail of en: policy I doubt given his admin experience on is: that he'd take some foolish action. Unless someone can point to evidence of disruptive behaviour I'd err on the side of granting adminship. I think it's highly unlikely any harm will result. As Smári says, the worst case scenario is that he does nothing. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:59, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. I faintly recall that I'd never touched VfD, RfA, nor any other such page before becoming an admin; why is it different now than it was then? ugen 64 04:23, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Fits my primary criterion: highly unlikely to misuse the abilities or cause trouble. Isomorphic 05:40, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Fine by me. --JuntungWu 11:47, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * :) — Helpful Dave 12:34, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support considering this user's excellent work and additional experience with Icelandic Wikipedia. I would like to see hir get hirs hands dirty in the other namespaces, though. – ClockworkSoul 13:52, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:42, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Skaz 17:30, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) I think people are pushing the expectations for adminship too high ( 1000 total edits, 500 to articles, 200 to talk, 100 to user talk, 100 to Wikipedia:, 100 to Wikipedia talk, 100 to category/talk, 100 to template/talk...uh, on second thought, make that 2000 total edits). He's done enough work here to show he knows how to edit in English, discussed enough to show he knows how to collaborate in English. I don't necessarily give credit for work done on the Icelandic Wikipedia, but it does speak for the fact that he can be trusted, which is what really counts. --Michael Snow 18:11, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - Seems active enough and level-headed enough, having a long history in is.wikipedia helps Tuf-Kat 06:34, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) 2208 edits on islandic wikipedia too. People should be made admins as soon as they can be shown to be able to handle the proverbial mop and bucket. We can be pretty sure of Biekko I think, unless someone has found an example of a particularly bad conflict? Kim Bruning 11:42, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Thank you for vocalising how I feel, Michael Snow :-)  — MikeX (talk) 16:41, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support.  We need more diversity.--Chammy Koala 11:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support; trustworthy, experienced; that the experience is on another wikipedia is fine with me. Antandrus 02:35, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support We need lots of ice. I mean Icelandic experts and total stick tothe fact guys.--Jondel 02:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Experience on the Icelandic project shows an ability to work with others and carry out admin tasks; adminship on the English wikipedia will involve only adjusting to the English-specific policies; he has apparently already shown the requisite temperament and ability to do so. And if he only seldom uses the powers but responsibly, that's fine by me. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Kbdank71 20:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Support, why not, no reason to oppose. I strongly support interlanguage wikis, esp. when they translate, BTW! Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 15:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Xezbeth  16:02, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Smit 17:41, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. These edit count objections are odd. Are we just after a number or a trusted contributor? 3000 total and 800 on English with no negative behavior at least indicates toward a positive contributor. Taxman 17:54, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Not enough experience on the janitorial tasks such as VfD, TfD, CfD, etc. These janitorial tasks are an integral part at being an admin. Zzyzx11 | Talk 21:26, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * See my comment below for more.
 * 1) Oppose, I expect to see more community involvement and active janitoring from a potential admin. Rje 21:46, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Sorry, not enough experience in janitorial work in the Wikipedia namespace. Mgm|(talk) 23:26, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Needs slightly more experience. Will support in the future. Carbonite | Talk 13:17, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Biekko seems helpful, but needs more experience here, imho. Kingturtle 05:34, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Good guy, but will support at 1100 edits. -- M e r o v i n g i a n  (t) (c) 15:27, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) oppose for now, not enough edits. my threshold is 1500+.   ALKIVAR ™[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 20:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. Not now. Please come back after you have 1200 edits to the English Wikipedia. (Unsigned, but vote by - Lst27 17:50, Apr 13, 2005)

Neutral
 * 1) Comment. I will support after this candidate does some more work on the Wikipedia namespace. Rad Racer | Talk 01:19, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Will support in a few months when they have more edits.-gadfium 05:53, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Can you make it clearer your username on the Icelandic wikipedia? These edit count objections are very strange to me if you really have over three thousand edits total. With that kind of experience I'd be inclined to vote support. - Taxman 15:59, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * My Icelandic username is the same as my English username, Biekko, see also edit count here.
 * Ok, I'm supporting now. - Taxman 17:54, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Comments
 * Biekko currently has 894 total edits to en: 697/79 to articles/talk, 32/0 to image, 29/0 to category, 21/15 to user/talk, 12/2 to Wikipedia/talk, 6/0 to Template, and 0/1 to MediaWiki/talk. —Korath (Talk) 21:31, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Regarding my lack of "janitorial experience": I don't know how much experience from other language editions should be taken into account here. I have played a big role in building up the Icelandic Wikipedia from scratch, I was one of the first admins there and I have definately been one of the most active janitors there as well. I have near 800 edits there outside the main article namespace which is the second highest count for that project. I created the process there for approving featured articles and did a lot of work on the categories. I have deleted, blocked, protected, unprotected & reverted more often than I care to know about. Considering all this it makes me feel a bit odd to read it here that I don't have janitorial experience although I recognize that it would be unfair to expect people to know my background from other projects. Also, these comments express a view that is different from my own about what adminship on Wikipedia is about. My view (and the dominant opinion on is.wikipedia) is that anybody who has established him/herself on Wikipedia as a respected editor should gain access to these few extra functions if they want to, why shouldn't they? But of course this decision is eventually made by the community and I will gladly accept any result they might come up with. --Bjarki 01:33, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * That used to be the policy on this project as well, when the administrator status was initially introduced basically anyone who had been with the project for a few weeks and bothered to ask for it got it, later people started to vote for it which eventually wound up in something of a popularity contest (but that's just my opinion of it). —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 02:43, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

 * I would like to address Bjarki and others who feel that his janitorial experience and work in is.wikipedia is sufficient. Sure, the mechanics and the software program is the same. My concern is that you are dealing with an entirely different set of users here on en.Wikipedia, all with different ideas, culture, and using different versions of the English language. An admin should be able to work effectively, interacting with all these people, and be familar with a wide range of categories here. I do not think you can get a feel for this until you have actually actively participated in janitorial work and discussions here at en.Wikipedia. Zzyzx11 | Talk 04:35, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * As it says in Requests for adminship, admins "should take care to be courteous, and exercise good judgment and patience in dealing with other users. Nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to see whether they have these qualities." It is hard to judge how Bjarki can effectively deal with this wide range of users here on en.Wikipedia when he currently has less than 1000 total edits and currently less than 20 edits in the Wikipedia namespace. I don't want to see him be overwhelmed with Wikistress that he is not effectively prepared for. Zzyzx11 | Talk 06:59, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Umm, he has been on Wikipedia not too far off two years, and has 4000 edits. He is already an experienced Wikipedia admin. All we are doing is extending his admin status to another language project. En: is not an entirely different world, it's just bigger and probably has slightly more rigid policies in place. If anything he is probably at an advantage over the average en: admin because he's been more closely involved in the actual development of policy. As he himself says: "I have deleted, blocked, protected, unprotected & reverted more often than I care to know about. Considering all this it makes me feel a bit odd to read it here that I don't have janitorial experience." I don't forsee this experienced user being "overwhelmed with Wikistress." — Trilobite (Talk) 16:36, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I respect all your opinions. All I'm saying is that I'm not comfortable with giving him the keys to the admin tools on en until he has a few more edits under his belt -- especially janitorial tasks. If I see a major jump in work here on en.wikipedia before the voting deadline, I might change my vote. Zzyzx11 | Talk 22:04, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It also says that adminship should be no big deal. Isn't Wikistress his own damn business?  If he is a good admin on the Icelandic project, you need very good reasons to insinuate that he will abuse his powers on the English project.  All other excuses for not supporting him are invalid.   :) — Helpful Dave 12:34, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I ever said anything about the possibility that he might abuse his powers. Based on his work on is.wikipedia, the chances of that are almost none. Zzyzx11 | Talk 22:04, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I am quite amused by all the neutral and oppose comments saying Biekko doesn't have enough edits here or there. People are using very strange measures (to my eyes at least, that is). So a question to those using numeric requirements: could you explain why/how you think such requirements "work" at getting good admins? Kim Bruning 17:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, while the question is a valid one imho, it might be too complex to go into here. Feel free to answer on my talk page, if you have some time for me anyway :-) Thanks! Kim Bruning 17:16, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I think that the number of edits is taken far too much into account. A vandal or a troll or even a newbie can rack-up a very large number of edits, but of course wouldn't be nominated for admin.    One of the nominees above made 500 edits in one day. What should be noted is that Biekko is already and admin, has had a lot of experience, and will bring something of value to the english wikipedia by improving our articles on Iceland.--Chammy Koala 11:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Edit Counting

Why are there so many folks here doing edit counting? This disturbs me. Please explain why this is useful?

And would you be happier if Biekko were to just not use the preview button for a while?

Kim Bruning 22:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * A. I will of course continue to revert on sight any instances of vandalism I come across, with admin rights and responsibilities I might start to seek out vandalism more actively. I have mostly stayed away from VfD but perhaps I will start taking an occasional look at it now.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. My single largest contribution to English Wikipedia was probably the history section in Reykjavík which I wrote, it hasn't changed much since then. I have made considerable contributions to a number of other subjects, mostly Iceland-related.
 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
 * A. I like to think that almost all of my interactions with fellow Wikipedians have been positive. I don't remember participating in a edit-war and I can sleep just fine at nights even though someone out there doesn't agree with me on some Wikipedia issue.

title: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Biekko


text:
Evan G. Greenberg

Evan G. Greenberg (born 1955) is an American business executive. He is the chairman and CEO of the Zürich-based insurance company Chubb Limited (formerly ACE Limited).

Early life and education
Greenberg is the son of Corinne Phyllis Zuckerman and Maurice R. Greenberg, the former chairman and CEO of American International Group (AIG). He is also the younger brother of Jeffrey W. Greenberg, the former CEO of Marsh & McLennan.

After graduating high school at 17, Greenberg traveled the country working odd jobs, including cooking at a nursing home and bartending. He later attended New York University and the College of Insurance but did not graduate from either.

Early career and AIG
In 1975, Greenberg started working in insurance, initially working for New Hampshire Insurance Co. in its automobile policies department. He began working for AIG later that year as an underwriter. During the 25 years he worked for AIG, Greenberg held a number of senior management positions. He ran AIG's Japan and Korea operations from 1991 to 1994. He then oversaw all international property-casualty operations from AIG's New York offices. Greenberg was named president and COO in 1997 and was considered the heir apparent to take over as CEO of AIG.

Despite Greenberg being in line to take over the company, he left his position as president in September 2000. He spent a year away from work to spend time with his family. After seeing the impact of the September 11 attacks on the insurance industry, with insurers affected by large claims, Greenberg decided to take the opportunity to accept then-ACE CEO Brian Duperreault's offer to join ACE.

ACE/Chubb
Greenberg joined ACE in November 2001 to lead the company's overseas unit. In June 2003, he was promoted to president and chief operating officer, and in May 2004, was named CEO. In May 2007, he was elected Chairman of ACE.

Following his promotion to CEO, Greenberg grew the company both through expansion of existing operations and through a strategy of acquisitions, acquiring 15 companies by 2015. In July 2015, Greenberg led a deal for ACE to acquire the insurance company Chubb for $28.3 billion, which was the largest merger deal in property and casualty insurance history. Shortly prior to the deal, he broke his ankle in a horse riding accident, and he worked on the merger while recovering. When the deal became official in January 2016, ACE adopted the Chubb name globally and Greenberg became chairman and CEO of Chubb. By 2021, Greenberg was credited in the media for having grown Chubb to the second-largest publicly listed insurance company in the U.S. and the largest non-injury insurer in the U.S. based on market value. As part of the acquisition plan to continue growing Chubb, he led an attempted acquisition bid for The Hartford in 2021. After making three offers that were each declined, he stated that Chubb would not continue to pursue the acquisition.

Following the merger, Greenberg has sought to grow Chubb's presence in Asia. He led the company's push to increase its holdings in Huatai Insurance, a China-based insurance company, by pursuing a regulatory change in China that would allow Chubb to become Huatai's majority owner. Officials passed the change in 2019 and Chubb gained majority ownership of Huatai in 2022.

In 2021, he led the company's acquisition of Cigna Group's Asian businesses that focused on health and accident insurance. In May 2024, Berkshire Hathaway confirmed that the firm had purchased 26 million shares of Chubb stock, worth $6.7 billion.

Political and financial positions, board roles
In the 2008 financial crisis, Greenberg opposed taxpayer-funded bailouts for the insurance industry. He gave a statement on behalf of the American Insurance Association as its then-chairman, noting that most of the association's members were not in favor of including property and casualty insurers in the list of companies able to make use of available federal bailout funds.

In February 2011, Greenberg was named to the board of directors at The Coca-Cola Company. He stepped down from the board position to focus on his role at Chubb in January 2016.

Greenberg has criticized protectionist trade policies and spoken in favor of policies that promote global trade and U.S. interests, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Greenberg called for a public-private partnership for pandemic risk, saying such a program would lessen the financial blow of a future pandemic. He testified at a July 2021 hearing of the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, to advocate for such a program.

He has also advocated for better business and political relationships between the U.S. and China. He is a member and former chairman of the US-China Business Council.

In March 2024, Greenberg defended Chubb's decision to provide former President Donald Trump a $91.6 million appeal bond for the civil case E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump in a letter to Chubb investors claiming the company doesn't "take sides." Greenberg was appointed by Trump to the Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations in 2018, serving on the committee from then into the Joe Biden presidency, stepping down in March 2023.

Greenberg is on the board of the National Committee on United States-China Relations and the US-China Business Council.

title: Evan G. Greenberg


text: Talk:Quiescence

title: Talk:Quiescence


text:
Visteon

Visteon Corporation (VC) is an American global automotive electronics supplier based in Van Buren Township, Michigan. Visteon designs, engineers, and manufactures vehicle cockpit electronics products, connected car services and electrification products for a diversified customer base, including nearly all of the major automakers worldwide.

Introduction
In 2022, Visteon had sales of US $3.76 billion and approximately 10,000 employees at more than 40 facilities in 18 countries. Visteon has set a corporate goal of expanding business with other companies, and now has a diversified customer base, working with all of the major automakers worldwide. Visteon's market share, market and revenue have changed substantially since it formed. Today, its revenue comes predominantly from Asia, North America, and Europe. In 2005, Visteon moved to new headquarters in Van Buren Township, Michigan.

Business
Initially, Visteon participated in three main divisions: climate, electronics, and interior systems. With the sale of its equity interest in the Climate operations in mid-year 2015 and completed sale of its interiors business in 2016, Visteon re-focused on the high-growth cockpit electronics business with a focus on software and the connected car.

In 2015, Visteon introduced Sachin Lawande as the new president and CEO.

Operations
Visteon's global headquarters is located in Van Buren Township, Michigan. The company also has additional facilities in Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Portugal, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Tunisia, India, China, Thailand, Korea and Japan.

Products

 * Electrification - Wired and wireless Battery Management Systems, switchable junction box, and integrated power electronics
 * Digital instrument clusters
 * Infotainment - Android and HTML
 * Digital cockpit displays
 * Telematics
 * SmartCore™ domain controllers
 * Visteon DriveCore ™ (Autonomous Driving)
 * AllGo app store and connected services

Restructuring
On September 13, 2005, Visteon and Ford reached an agreement whereby seventeen of the less-profitable Visteon plants and six offices would be transferred to an independent business entity called Automotive Components Holdings LLC. This action, intended to assure the long-term viability of Visteon, involved the transfer of 18,000 hourly workers and 5000 salaried workers to the new entity, reducing Visteon to approximately 52,000 employees worldwide and $11 billion in annual sales. Three of the plants are in Mexico, the remaining plants and six offices are in the US. Automotive Components Holdings (ACH), managed by Ford, was referred to as a "temporary entity", as its purpose was to prepare the plants and facilities for sale. By the end of 2007, all ACH operations had been closed, scheduled for closure, merged at least partially, or sold (two back to Ford), with transactions to be completed by the end of 2008 except for one plant which is to remain an ACH facility until its closure in 2009.

On March 31, 2009, Visteon's UK subsidiary was deemed insolvent, and placed into administration. The UK subsidiary had never been profitable, and the insolvency was the result of the US parent company being unwilling to continue to support the British operation. The administrators, KPMG, immediately moved to close all three Visteon UK factories and made 565 workers redundant. Visteon's profitable UK subsidiary Visteon Engineering Services (VES) remained unaffected by the restructuring.

As a result, workers occupied the plants in Belfast, Northern Ireland, and Enfield, London, and picketed the plant in Basildon, Essex, to gain better redundancy packages.

Bankruptcy and emergence
The Subprime mortgage crisis greatly impacted the auto industry and left Visteon with little demand. During early March 2009, Visteon was delisted from the New York Stock Exchange for trading at extremely low levels. This action came after Visteon shares dropped from 7 to 2 cents. On May 28, 2009, the company filed voluntary petitions to reorganize Visteon Corporation and certain of its U.S. subsidiaries under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The case was heard in Delaware on May 29, 2009, by Judge Christopher Sontchi, where Visteon was granted Chapter 11 protection.

Visteon completed its reorganization and emerged from Chapter 11 on October 1, 2010.

Acquisitions
In July 2014, Visteon acquired Johnson Controls electronics division for $265 Million. In July 2016, Visteon acquired AllGo Embedded Systems Pvt Ltd.

title: Visteon


text:
Talk:Redskin

Indigenous terminology
There is an ongoing debate regarding the correct terminology to use when referring to the indigenous peoples of the land now called the Americas. Every WP article cannot be cleansed based upon what some editors define as inappropriate terminology, since the sources used may have an entirely different terminology. When describing something in the past, is using modern terminology a misrepresentation? If a cited source uses inappropriate terminology, can it be "cleansed"?FriendlyFred (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "When describing something in the past, is using modern terminology a misrepresentation?" No, using the term "African American" or "Black" instead of "Negro" when describing the past is still accurate and correct. However, unlike "Indian" the term "Negro" is more outdated. You're referring to "Indian" vs. "Native American" right..? Using the term "Native American" instead of "Indian" and "American Indian" can avoid confusion with Indians from India and Indian Americans (Americans with heritage from India). Prcc27 (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see that you were referring to "American Indian" vs. "Indian"... "American" would clarify who you're talking about so unless there's some context clues in the paragraph that Native Americans are being referred to instead of Indians (from India), "American Indian" or "Native American" might be a better term to use. Prcc27 (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I was referring quoting or closely paraphrasing references, where using new terms alters the meaning of the source.FriendlyFred (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Pejoration
Twice in this article we say the word "underwent a process of pejoration," but we don't really cite an article that says this. The link provided is to the Oxford dictionary, which does say it "is now dated or offensive," but I don't think that is really enough. Essentially, this "process of pejoration" is assumed from that statement, and thus we are doing original research. Fnordware (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The Oxford definition states: "The term originally had a neutral meaning and was used by American Indians themselves, but it eventually acquired an unfavorable connotation." The wiktionary definition of pejoration (linguistics) is "The process by which a word acquires a more negative meaning over time." Not original research, perhaps failure to cite the references fully enough. FriendlyFred (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Simplifying by coordinating content of related articles
Since I edit this article and two others with related content, I am making an effort to simplify things for me and the readers by placing detailed content in the appropriate place and replacing details with wikilinks.

For example:
 * Washington Redskins name controversy has a section on the origin and meaning of the name, but the details are in Redskin (slang)
 * Washington Redskins name controversy is a summary of Native American mascot controversy

Comparison of the R-Word to the N-Word
An anonymous comment was made on my talk page which I deleted, but will answer here. The statement appeared to be that any comparison between redskin and nigger is false because no form of the latter has ever been used by a sports team. However the point of comparison is that both words are contemptuous or offensive references to people, yet one is freely used while the other is not.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

good source?
how about this writing? 'How Indians Got To Be Red'--Blaua (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The title screams out to me "don't trust this" but at just a first glance it is a scholarly work and the title is meant to be ironic. I only just skimmed to first part, so I have no opinion on the full question of whether to use it as a source.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 15:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * it is in fact a scholarly work and quite nuanced and detailed in its approach to the question. Meets RS unless anyone else sees something I am not at the moment. Elinruby (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

route the savages?
I left this alone because it was in quotes, but could we check this please, as I think that surely it should be "rout'. Elinruby (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep, confirmed. It's on p.98 (where that links to), the right column, 4th para (~ half way down).  Bromley86 (talk) 04:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * So it is. Can we add a '"(sic)" to indicate we've noted the misspelling but it's in the original? Or perhaps find another quote, hmm, which is probably a lot of trouble for a relatively minor issue, even if it does twang my OCD. I'll take a look for one myself perhaps, but what do people think of the sic idea? Because, honest, they must have meant "rout"; it makes much more sense than "route". Elinruby (talk) 06:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi . I was going to look into whether people sic archaic spellings, but I'm not sure that'll be necessary.  In this case, we don't need to include the quote fragment that has "route" in it, as it's just preamble that we can paraphrase.  I'll put that through.  Bromley86 (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * that works for me and prevents us from having to worry about whether it was a misspelling or an archaic spelling or what. I am simply saying that a lot hinges on this one quote and such errors are distracting and raise doubts that may be unnecessary. Elinruby (talk) 00:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

tout les peaux rouges
this is an error in grammar and makes me question the source. Should be 'tous' in this context. 'Tout' is used to refer to a whole object, as in a cake or a boat. If the intended meaning is that there are many and all of them are the subject, then it should be 'tous.' Granted it was 1769, but... Elinruby (talk) 02:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The translations were, I believe, made by half-bloods: “The Speeches made at the Ilinois & at other places are generally taken by French Interpreters, who are men of very little learning, this will account for the badness of the French & the errors or Orthography". Johnson, William 1921–1965 The Papers of Sir William Johnson. 14 vols. Albany, NY: The University of the State of New York  Bromley86 (talk) 04:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The translation of "peaux rouges" as "redskins" is a direct quote from the source, so it should remain? --WriterArtistDC (talk) 05:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That was my initial thought too, but our wording is currently "which translates as", rather than "which was translated as", so I can see Elinruby's point. I imagine we should say "which was translated as" if we want to use redskin.  Both work for me.  Bromley86 (talk) 06:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ordinarily this would be a good place for an explanatory footnote, but WP does not seem to use them much.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * On second thought, perhaps the correction of the translation inadvertently undercuts Goddard's argument that these were the first uses of the combined term redskin rather that the expression "red skin".--WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Cool, correcting to translation then. Bromley86 (talk) 20:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Making it "was translated" works for me as far as "tout" vs "tous"; it's a small point but I don't like to validate even small errors. Meanwhile, I do feel that peaux rouges does not exactly correspond to redskin, but I am content to let that hang fire unless or until I am able to propose a solution, since it's a fairly central point and I haven't done enough research to question what is definitely a reliable source under wikipedia rules. I may come back to it. But this is also me, noting the possible issue with Goddard's analysis and when I comes to French my credentials are probably better than his ;) but credentials of editors of course are not a factor in wikipedia discussion of issues. Elinruby (talk) 06:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

"Peau" is feminine. The determiner could never be "tous." 2600:8800:1E80:4F50:E009:6CC7:1E01:F2B9 (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Cleanup
Placed a summary of the Darren Reid content in the origins section since that is what he addresses, removed excess detail from the Evolved meaning section.

Removed a second "However" that seemed unnecessary and awkward. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Having added some uncontroversial content on usage in newspapers to the "Later use" section, I see no reason not to combine "Evolving meaning" and "Later use" into a single section, perhaps entitled "Pejoration" again. Some of the items may not currently be in chronological order. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Post dispute resolution
Added subsections and expanded opening paragraph of Origins section to summarize more fully. Also applied naming conventions for refs; "Author.year" to Goddard, needs to be applied to the entire article. Parameters should also be in quotes, although not required. The usefulness of naming refs also requires the use of the rp template for page numbers.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

POV Resolution
After four months of persistent discussion that produced little agreement (see archive 2), I am being BOLD in assuming that two weeks with no activity indicates a return to normal editing, so I have restored content that provides a minimal balance of differing views on this controversial topic, and removed the POV tag I placed in May.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Improvements
I have done some rewording and reorganizing; and added content from a book by Nancy Shoemaker. Currently in the process of converting the list of high schools into examples of how and why changes are being made.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:48, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Upon reviewing the sources on high schools, there is little to support any content directly relevant to the topic of this article, the meaning and usage of the term redskin. Only two aspects of the Washington Redskins controversy, opinion polls and the trademark decision, address this topic. University and high schools decisions will be removed unless they are similar.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

While I was otherwise occupied by the flu in March, a number of significant changes were made by User:Dbachmann, some of which seem to go beyond the cited sources into over-generalization and speculation. Most troubling is the removal of an entire section reflecting the Native American point of view on the topic, reducing it to a single sentence:

"'Some Native American activists in the 21st century, in contradiction of the etymological evidence discussed above, assert that 'redskin' refers directly to the bloody, red scalp or other body part collected for bounty.'"

This is inaccurate, since the Native American leaders have been making their case for decades, and the wording comparing the evidence from different sources is WP:synth. I am open to discussion before making corrections.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Student edits
While any article may be improved, and I generally appreciate any effort to do so, this controversial topic requires an understanding of both the subject matter and the WP editing guidelines that is not reflected in the recent edits by User:Jkappss, which I have reverted. There should be discussion here before any additional edits are made.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Redskin (ethnic slur)
Why is this article titled Redskin (slang), instead of what seems fairly obviously more justified Redskin (ethnic slur)? Was the title of (slang) ever justified?  Eljamoquio (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * While I am now the major contributor, I did not originate the article or select its name. A case might be made for changing the name to simply "Redskin" which would coincide with the articles about other generally recognized racial slurs, such as nigger, kike, and spic; none of which include ((racial slur)) in their title. All racial slurs are also slang, since they are not standard terms, but used by individuals to signal the inclusion or exclusion of others. Perhaps the original article was titled to differentiate it from merely descriptive uses, such as redskin peanuts or potatoes. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's both slang and a slur. The primary usage, originally, was (and is) slang, and is not intended as a slur, as far as I can tell from reading the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The same is said about nigger, which began as a slang reference to black skin but quickly became a slur. The real question is whether to make this the default target of a search for "redskin" rather than the current disambiguation page. The assumption that the meaning of the term is unambiguously a slur might be a violation of NPOV given the number of sports fans who disagree. Since I live in DC, I see or hear and read the term constantly, and am in the minority who react to it as a slur. Googling "redskin" results in mainly references to the sports team, while a search in my university library results in many of the references used in the controversy articles. Do academics or common usage rule on WP in questions of NPOV? --WriterArtistDC (talk) 12:31, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We could involve WP:NDN in the discussion, if we want more eyes. The projects on inherent bias and such are basically dead. I have redirected the Euro term Red Indian to this page as, while I know there are people who used to use it in a neutral way, it really is a slur now, the way "Redskin" is. (The page had redirected simply to one of the Native pages.) Right now Nigger is just at the word, no qualifier in the page name. I think that the issue here is less about slur vs slang, but that the sports team page gets more hits, so will always be seen as the dominant page unless and until they change the team name. We could propose a page move for this, however, to Redskin (ethnic slur). As long as we have plenty of sources citing it as a slur, that might work. I can make it a redirect now, and see how that goes. If there's support for a page move we can just move over the redirect. With controversy around it, if you want to move the page it should probably be suggested via the formal process, not just informally here. - CorbieV  ☊ ☼ 19:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I made the redirect. Before proposing the page move, I would see if you can rewrite the lede to meet the criteria for that page name, with ample sourcing in the lede itself that documents its use as a slur. - CorbieV  ☊ ☼ 19:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

If there were a page move, I would vote to simple rename this article to Redskin, and move the current content of that page to Redskin (disambiguation). The article would begin with a standard disclaimer: This article is about the term redskin; for other uses see Redskin (disambiguation). The current opening sentence clearly established the current meaning as derogatory with reference to dictionary definitions. However, I do not think it is a slur in the same sense as the other racial terms cited, which have no alternative use. An article entitle Redskin (ethnic slur) would be WP:SYNTH since it states a conclusion while the article gives a more complex and balanced view.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and made the page move request.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The first step in this process would be to rename Redskin --> Redskin (disambiguation), reversing what was done a number of years ago. A question would be whether to continue to have a Redskins (disambiguation) page or combine them. Anyone searching for the plural form is likely looking for information about the football team, so I have no objections to "Redskins" redirecting to Washington Redskins, with the appropriate hatnote.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have edited Redskin in preparation for its renaming.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 30 May 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. King of ♥   ♦   ♣  ♠ 01:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Redskin (slang) → Redskin – The term in its singular form has no alternative meaning that needs to be differentiated by the addition of the (slang) qualifier. This renaming brings it into agreement with the titles of articles on other racial pejoratives that are also slang. WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

See Redskin (ethnic slur) above.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: This seems to clearly be the primary meaning of the term – especially in the singular form. No disambiguation is needed. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - see |Redskin_(slang)|Redskin_(film)|Redskin_(subculture) pageviews. (Also avoids POV issue discussed in section above.) Station1 (talk) 03:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support move. The common meaning of singular "redskin" is, of course, this term. The theoretical fact that plural "Redskins" often means something else entirely is irrelevant here.  O.N.R.  (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Redskins currently redirects to Redskin. I think it's more likely than not that someone who types in "redskin" into the search box is looking for something other than the article on the slang term. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as primary meaning. Also move Redskins (disambiguation)→Redskin (disambiguation). There is significant overlap between the singular and plural DAB pages, and they should just simply be merged per WP:DABCOMBINE (Redskins (disambiguation) has the oldest edit history). -- Netoholic @ 19:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: Page Redskin is a disambig page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As stated above: part of the move process would be to redo the redirect/disambig pages associated with redskin/redskins and adding needed hatnotes to the articles.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Very clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and in support of majority. Barca (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, per nom and given that the current title doesn't convey the ethnic slur element. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: Consensus being reached, I have requested technical assistance for this move.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cleanup of "Red skin" vs. "Redskin"
These two terms need disambiguation individually, but do not need to overlap given that the former refers exclusively to human skin conditions that result in reddening of the skin, while the latter refers to cultural association of "red" to people. The hatnote on this page need only include the DAB page for the topic of this article, not all possible terms, which I have added to Redskin (disambiguation).--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Are "redskins" red-skinned?
I accessed this article to find out whether Native Americans indeed have red or reddish skin. Unfortunately this article does not trouble itself to answer that mundane question and instead indulges in political waffling. The few Native Americans that I have met (Pacific coastal Canada and Pacific coastal USA) did not have a red skin colour, but perhaps there are regional differences? I would be grateful if someone could make a simple, referenced statement near the beginning of the article on Native American skin colour. 86.158.216.245 (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You read the wrong article, this one is about the word redskin as used in English, which has become a political issue. Information on the objective skin color of humans would be found in Human skin color. The answer is everyone is a shade of brown, some more reddish than others. "Native American" is a collective term for over 500 ethnic groups spanning a continent so there is no one answer, any more than for any other geographical area.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 22:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for answering. The Human skin color page is useful in many ways, but unfortunately you are wrong: that article does not mention native American skin colour(s) either. So my question remains: are there any red or reddish-skinned Native Americans? A Google search "Do Native Americans have red skin?" provides political waffle but no answer. I have never seen a red-skinned Native American (Washington State, British Columbia, Arizona, various South American native musicians performing in the streets of Europe), and I am beginning to conclude that no such red skin exists. If so, I maintain this should be pointed out at the beginning of the article using the existing sources saying "For the sake of clarity, none of these sources makes the claim that any Native American tribes have a red or reddish skin colour." [optional addition: "- they vary from light-skinned to brown]". 86.140.70.245 (talk) 15:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not say the information you sought was in the skin color article, but that it should be. If you find any answers on Google, perhaps you can improve that article.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for replying quickly, but I disagree with your proposal of "passing the buck" to a different article. Redskin is the obvious place to look up red skin. As I explained, Google came up only with political waffle on American sport (which no doubt is interesting to some Americans, but not to the rest of the world). Google did not provide either an endorsement or a disclaimer of "red skin" in Native Americans. I have suggested a simple disclaimer ("For the sake of clarity, none of these sources makes the claim that any Native American tribes have a naturally red or reddish skin colour.") and would be grateful if you, as a registered user, could implement it. Thank you. 86.140.70.245 (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Do not edit war.
, you are repeatedly removing sourced content. I have left a notice on your page explaining the issues with this. The content you were removing was already well-sourced in the body of the article, and is now also sourced in the lede. Stop this POV push. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 23:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

No, I removed no links. My link was removed.

As a Native American I am perturbed someone else would prose mixed opinion as fact. Plus the same information is shared below on the same page.

Other clean-up items of grammar and incorrect verb tense were continuously removed out of pettiness.

Furthermore, if they're going to state many Native Americans were against it for decades, then they must also accept polls showed a high percentage was not.

Agreed? PeterM34 (talk) 02:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

 * I am not Native American, but I believe that the NCAI represents the majority opinion, which are not mixed on this. I am a social scientist, so I know the difference between a scientific study and an opinion poll. The body of the article details the difference in this case, so there is no need to mention anything in the lead except the NCAI opposition to the name since 1968.
 * Mixing POV and grammar correction in the same edit got both reverted. I have gone back to review my wording and made changes.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * re:Edit warring, your first edit was so obviously POV that I simply reverted it, but with a good edit summary to explain. You reverted me, with more POV about removing an opinion, indicating that you had ignored my explanation.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Washington name change
Now that the controversy has entered a different stage (but certainly not gone away), some revisions to this article are in order. Perhaps there was always too much about the DC team, but the subsections on the opinion polls and trademark dispute could be reduced by moving content from here to the linked articles on those topics.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I will likely work on these sections now, reducing the content to only what is relevant to the article topic, the meaning of the term "redskin". This is in accordance with WP:Summary style.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Done, summarizing the polling subsection, the trademark subsection seems ok.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Archive mismatch
This page currently has discussions that are both older and newer than the content in Archive 2. Although the archive template says Do Not Modify the talk page guidelines seem to allow for correction of errors such as this.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Overlinking
The last paragraph in the opening section is now overlinked, having two links to the same target article. The first is an intentional link to a redirect page, something that I have always assumed should also be avoided. The information being summarized is that what once had been the most prominent usage of the term "redskin" has been changed, the meaning of the term (the topic of the article) being the reason for that change. The topic is about words, not sports teams, so the old name is a distinct entity and should no longer link to the team article in this context. Rewording is needed, but the information requires more than one sentence to convey, so I do not think duplication of links assists the understanding of a reader entirely unfamiliar with the topic but may in fact be confusing.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The article may be about words, but the paragraph is about sports teams, which is why the quotation marks are unnecessary. I agree that it is overlinked: I was trying to compromise between your position and mine (by invoking WP:IAR). The first mention (of either Washington Redskins or Washington Football Team) really needs to be linked, as it significantly aids the reader's understanding of that paragraph. Rewriting it so that "Washington Football Team" occurs in the paragraph before "Washington Redskins" might be the best way to achieve this.

 * Linking to a redirect should not be a problem. That's what redirects are for. Bmf 051 (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

 * I have changed the paragraph to place one link to the current team article, and also eliminated the details that do not need to be in the opening section when summarizing article content per WP:Manual of Style/Lead section. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Transclusion
I am trying Transclusion as an alternative to maintaining similar content is several articles.

I maintain the list of secondary school mascots, the redskins section is transcluded into this and another article. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I need something more than an edit summary to explain why a feature that was programmed into WP should never be used.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

 * Should never be used? That isn't true. Transclusion is widely used, primarily for templates and maintenance pages in the Wikipedia name space; these constitute most of the examples given in Transclusion. There are a few pages in article space that use transclusion too.
 * The fact that it is possible to do doesn't mean it is appropriate to do. I reverted your transclusion because I disagree with you that this article needs a list of specific secondary schools. This article isn't a list article, and there is no need to include (or transclude) a list into it. The article is already long enough, and anyone who wants to see the specific schools (I don't when I view this page) can always follow the link given. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Your edit summary was "It's best not to transclude anything, just link to it..." which is not exactly what you are saying above. Transclusion is ok, but you disagree with the content, not the method. I disagree, as the editor who has been following the topic since 2012. Including a list of 40 here does not make his a "list article". Over the years I have used several lists of similar size in other articles on this topic, which lends itself to such presentation. When the lists grew too large, I spun them off into their own articles such as List of Washington Redskins name change advocates which reached more than 40 in Washington Redskins name controversy before the split. Working the other way, it seemed to me that the number of high schools being down to 40 (and shrinking rapidly) is significant, and transclusion makes it easy to present this information without the need for a reader to follow a link.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll address your points in order:
 * I primarily disagree with the content, but I also disagree with the method. Transclusion in main article space consists mostly of shared templates rather than translcuded article content. Transclusion creates a load on the server preprocessor, which is why there are limits imposed on transclusions. If a transclusion isn't necessary, then avoid it.
 * The fact that you have been following the topic for 9 years suggests that you are invested in it. Step back and look at the article from the perspective of an uninvolved reader. I am approaching the topic as a reader who wants to learn about it. It struck me as a non-sequitur to be reading informative prose about the subject and then be confronted with a list of specific secondary schools whose names mean nothing to me, without any context about the reasons for the size of the list. So I reverted it back to the version that provided an informative treatment about the subject, with a link to the list of specific schools for anyone who really cares about their identities.
 * "I have used several lists of similar size in other articles" is basically a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument and isn't a reason for including the list here. The counter-argument is that if the lists in those other articles are as inappropriate as I perceived the list in this article, then those lists should be removed as well.
 * "...the number of high schools being down to 40 (and shrinking rapidly) is significant, and transclusion makes it easy to present this information without the need for a reader to follow a link." Not really, no. Yes, the number of high schools shrinking down to 40 is significant and needs to be explained in prose, giving examples like my reversion does. The significance of this number is neither explained nor clarified merely by transcluding a list. That is not an encyclopedic treatment of the topic, it's just a display of data. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

First, I appreciate your taking the time to respond fully. Regarding your points: --WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Frankly the "Help" page for transclusions was not helpful, and did not appear to argue that its use in main space was to be avoided. I did not see the template limits article before; perhaps it is deemed too technical for primary documentation. I was hoping to find something helpful in keeping content up to date across related articles. This is what I do by hand much of the time, the Native American mascot controversy being continually evolving topic.
 * I don't know whether you mean invested in the topic or moving toward ownership. My attachment to the topic is the same as that of the social scientists that I have been reading to create content. The fact that my authorship of articles is high actually worries me, I submitted the two main articles for GA review primarily to get others to collaborate.
 * Adding the prose needed to convey the reasons for and the significance of the decline in mascots is difficult; each school makes its decision to change or keep its team name independently, and the details are not often mentioned in reliable sources. As a social scientist myself, I understand what is going on, but cannot say so without OR. However this article is about the word, not its usage in sports, so maybe the best thing to do is place the sports content in linked articles.
 * About your second point, I didn't mean to imply you were moving toward ownership, I meant simply that you appeared to be looking at the article through a different lens than a reader who is new to the topic. I try to read articles from a new-reader perspective, and replace anything that looks like it doesn't belong with a relevant link.
 * Your third point expresses my objection far more succinctly than I managed: It's about the word, not its usage in sports. That's why the list appeared to me like it didn't belong. It seemed like unnecessary detail tangential to the main topic. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

GA Review nomination
Having been complete and stable for a number of years, I think it is time for this.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

 * @WriterArtistDC I made a review at Talk:Redskin/GA1 and since you're primary contributor/nominator wanted to make sure you saw it (I guess bot would notify you as well). I'll leave it on hold for a week pending no improvements, then either mark as succeed/failed. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Redskin


text:
Azad Hind Radio

Azad Hind Radio was a radio service that was started under the leadership of Subhas Chandra Bose in 1942 to encourage Indians to fight against the British. Though initially based in Nazi Germany, its headquarters were shifted to Japanese occupied Singapore following the course of the war in Southeast Asia. After Netaji's departure to Southeast Asia, the German operations were continued by A.C.N. Nambiar, the head of the Indian Legion in Nazi Germany and later ambassador of the Arzi Hukumate Azad Hind in Germany.

The station broadcast weekly news bulletins in English, Hindi, Tamil, Bengali, Marathi, Punjabi, Pashto and Urdu, the languages spoken by most potential volunteers for the Indian Legion in Germany and the Indian National Army in southeast Asia.

Azad Hind Radio aimed to counter the broadcasts of Allied radio stations. On Azad Hind Radio, Bose referred to the British Broadcasting Corporation as the Bluff and Bluster Corporation and All India Radio as the Anti-Indian Radio.

Operations
Subhas Chandra Bose set up the Free India Centre in Berlin in the then Nazi Germany and at the same time set up Azad Hind Radio within Germany's radio service and was initially funded by the Germans. The station was set up as a shortwave station and broadcast for the first time on 7 January 1942. It focused on driving anti-allied force messages and messages seeking Indian independence directed at Indians living abroad and those in the Indian subcontinent. It beamed news bulletins in English, Hindi, Tamil, Bengali, Marathi, Punjabi, Pashto, Gujarati, and Urdu. The station's headquarters shifted to Rangoon in Myanmar and later to Singapore following the war in south-east Asia. Speaking of Bose's plans for the station in the initial days, his second-in-command A. C. N. Nambiar would later depose that Bose had initially wanted to launch two additional radio stations, one called 'Congress Radio' that would be aimed at the supporters of Gandhi and another called 'Azad Muslim Radio' to counter the actions of the Muslim League. He had wanted to initially keep the stations secret to give the impression that the content was being broadcast from some location in India.

In addition to news programming, the station broadcast messages from Bose and his Azad Hind Fauj (Indian National Army). It was on this station that Bose declared war against Britain and the allied forces on October 23, 1943. The Azad Hind program on the station that was initiated would start with Bahadur Shah Zafar, the last Mughal emperor's recorded voice, "Ghazio mein by rahegi jab talak iman ki, Tab toh London tak chalegi regh hindustan ki" (. Zafar spent his last few years in Rangoon, where the station was then based. The programming on the station was largely considered Nazi German propaganda against the British actions in the region. The BBC launched its own Eastern Service station in the early 1940s to counter propaganda by stations like the Azad Hind Radio.

The station continued operations until June 1945 even after Bose's Indian National Army was defeated by the British in 1944.

title: Azad Hind Radio


text:
Talk:Jean Buridan

Untitled

 * A posthumous campaign by Okhamists succeeded in having Buridan's writings placed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum from 1474-1481.

But according to Index Librorum Prohibitorum, it was created in 1559. Okhamists are trickier than I thought?

 * Please sign posts! Edit is mine, source was Encyclopaedia Britannica (2001) "Buridan's own works were condemned and placed on the Index of Forbidden Books from 1474 to 1481 by partisans of Ockham." No byline in the article. Perhaps a misunderstanding by me about what index? Cutler 19:56, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Justification for Skepticism Comment?
I dispute that Buridan was a founder of religious skepticism or a religious skeptic himself. What is the evidence for this claim?

Justification for Skepticism ?
I also dispute the idea that Buridan was a founder of religious skepticism or a religious skeptic himself. The notion of impetus he conceived makes of him a precursor of Galilee who developped the notion of inertia three centuries later. Both notions are actually mathematically equivalent, although there are slight philosophical differences between the two. But precursors of Galilee need not have been religious sceptics! In fact, the following quote from Buridan proves that Buridan was not a sceptic of the catholic faith at all: "It should also be noted that [when we ask whether metaphysics is the same as wisdom,] we are not comparing metaphysics to theology, which proceeds from beliefs that are not known, because although these beliefs are not known per se and most evident, we hold without doubt that theology is the more principal discipline and that it is wisdom most properly speaking. In this question, however, we are merely asking about intellectual habits based on human reason, [i.e.,] those discovered by the process of reasoning, which are deduced from what is evident to us. For it is in this sense that Aristotle calls metaphysics ‘theology’ and ‘the divine science’. Accordingly, metaphysics differs from theology by the fact that although each considers God and those things that pertain to divinity, metaphysics only considers them as regards what can be proved and implied, or inductively inferred, by demonstrative reason. But theology has for its principles articles [of faith], which are believed quite apart from their evidentness, and further, considers whatever can be deduced from articles of this kind." (QM I.2: 4ra-rb)

Skeptical Methods
It is clear that Buridan was skeptical in method, as the scholastic disputato requires skepticism. Buridan is widely recognized as a master of scholasticism and its methods, which was the origin of the problem of the ass. Though I doubt he was a religious skeptic, he was skeptical about elements of dogma and practices because that is part of his method. --Buridan 15:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

If the only justification for Buridan's alleged scepticism is that he was a master of scholastic methods which 'require skepticism', then scholasticism itself sowed the seeds of skepticism in Europe... This simply does not make sense to me!

By the way, Okham's strong reaction against old fashioned scholasticism and Roman power puts him in a better position to be qualified as a precursor of modern 'skepticism' (although skepticism per se remains a very vague notion if what it is applied to is not clearly stated: religious skepticism and epistemological skepticism should be clearly distinguished; Kant for instance provides a -perhaps too clear- distinction between these two domains) than Buridan himself, contrary to what the article suggests. I simply don't know (and strongly doubt) whether Buridan's reaction against Okham may be considered to have anything to do with scepticism, be it religious, methodological, or other.

Sec. 1.1. "Impetus theory": Momentum being caused by motion? WRONG!
I think that it must not be stated in the encyclopedia such a description that diverge from the modern physical knowledge. In classical physics there is no mention of cause at all: it is said that momentum and motion are just connected to eash other, such that they always come together. But in quantum mechanics the operator of momentum is gradient of the wave function; and according to the Schroedinger equation, the spatial motion is caused by the gradient. So actually it comes that momentum is causing motion; and Buridan said almost the same: that impetus is causing motion. I don't know any branch of physics where it would be stated that momentum is caused by motion, except the case of poorly understood beginner's textbook. Fir-tree 16:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Would it be fair to call these metaphysical principles? Here's how I read what's written above: the first metaphysical principle being Motion causes momentum (i.e., Momentum being caused by motion) and the second Impetus causes motion (i.e., spatial motion is caused by the momentum gradient: momentum gradient causes spatial motion).  If so and if i'm reading these statements correctly--"WRONG!" commentary aside--this analysis on the metaphysics of modern quantum mechanics should be appropriate in some wikipedia article or other.--Firefly322 (talk) 16:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Religious scepticism
The phrase "religious scepticism" seems to be devoid of a definite meaning in this context. Because several other users made the same claim on this talk page, I removed it from the article. In response to Buridan's claim above that Scholasticism was sceptical, I think that scepticism must in this context be use be used only in its philosophical sense. This sense includes scepticism about whether true knowledge can ever be had or whether anything can be proved. David Hume is perfect example of the philosophical sceptic. Buridan does not share Hume's scepticism in any way that I can see. Srnec 23:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

William of Ockham
I have removed the claim that Buridan was taught by William of Ockham. Although there is great similarity between their mature views, Ockham was not Buridan's teacher for the simple reason that Ockham never taught at the University of Paris. Ockham's philosophical career was spent at Oxford and the Franciscan house in London. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.74.116.234 (talk) 20:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction with Index Librorum Prohibitorum
The article claims that "A posthumous campaign by Ockhamists succeeded in having Buridan's writings placed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum from 1474-1481." However, in Index Librorum Prohibitorum it is stated that "The first list of the kind was not published in Rome, but in Roman Catholic Netherlands (1529)". So, according to the later, the index didn't exist in the 15th century. Top.Squark (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Buridan, the Hiker?
The article on Petrarch, who claimed to have climbed the 2,000+m. of Mt Ventoux and thus to be among the first recreational hikers, reports: "However, the nineteenth-century Swiss historian Jacob Burckhardt noted that Jean Buridan had climbed the same mountain [Mt. Ventoux] a few years before".

--174.7.25.37 (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Burdian was not French. Atrois was annexed into France much later.
Even a lot of Calais and abodes was English and Dutch speaking up until WW2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.91.155 (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Chemistry
Matter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.231.239.219 (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Can we add a “philosophy” section
It’s just to generally describe his philosophy, general overviews of his logix,metaphysics and reception by other philosophers? Krisb121 (talk) 11:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Jean Buridan


text:
User talk:Jkl

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Thank you for the new AC-3 algorithm article. Just a small remark. On Wikipedia, the variables are made italic, so X is preferred to plain X. Enjoy! Oleg Alexandrov 18:57, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

World Citizen userbox,
Hi, I noticed the message saying you're a World Citizen, I would like to invite you to add to your user page if you wish to proclaim it in a more effective way, and this template will also add you automatically to the Wikipedians with World Citizenship category. :) --Mistress Selina Kyle 23:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Yo yo
Your edits on the Battle of Ratan and Sävar were just fine, but they were based on a false version a fake version by a blocked vandal who has been blocked. So I restored the original text, feel free to edit the original text. I would be most happy if you were to revert to my version and then work on it however you see fit Shipseggsbasket (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm uncomfortable with the unattributed casualty numbers in "your" edition. What I will do is this; I shall consult my sources and edit the article to match what I can find as consensus. Probably not tonight my time, it's getting too late to hunt in the library jkl (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The guy who changed the numbers has been going around all of Wikipedia and decreasing Swedish casualties and increasing the number of whoever they were fighting, he had done so in several 100 articles 99,999999% of his edits were unreferenced and the others were homemade internet pages Shipseggsbasket (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have reverted to the previous un-sourced numbers and added a source for them. It is the book called "svenska slag" or "svenska slagfalt". I added the ISBN number for reference as well. I believe that this book is a better reference than the web-page. There seem to be some general mixup between the total number of casulties in Savar and Ratan with the casulties in Ratan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.57.75 (talk) 07:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

invitation
You're invited to sign up as a founding member, at WikiProject Council/Proposals ! :) doncram (talk) 07:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Portaledge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ten (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) 11:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4
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.

 * Archiepiscopal Museum, Ravenna (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Tarsus, Theodosius, Council of Nicea and Theophilus

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Özz Nûjen

The article Özz Nûjen has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. -- MST  ☆  R   (Chat Me!) 10:34, 2 November 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 Özz Nûjen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Swede (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) 11:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Reduction (Sweden), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Riksdag (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) 11:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3
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.

 * List of trees (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Salem, Santa Barbara, White Oak, Grana and Hessian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ättestupa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Åby (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) 19:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Karlqvist gap, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Permeability and Air gap (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) 13:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Black silicon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Small (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) 09:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Swedish library classification system, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Play (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, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Badelundaåsen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Siljan (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, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1930 Curuçá River event, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ABC-TV, Tunguska and Vatican (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) 08:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Bysjön, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hannibal Sehested (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) 08:52, 17 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 Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Company, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Member and OKG. 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) 09:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Test of English as a Foreign Language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tuck. 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) 09:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Harstena, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Water lily. 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) 09:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Ways to improve The Swedish Lion in Narva
Hello, Jkl,

Thank you for creating The Swedish Lion in Narva.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

"Thanks for creating this article"

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Abishe (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Table-based heap compaction.svg

The file File:Table-based heap compaction.svg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "Orphaned file with no obvious value in transferring to Commons"

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

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Salavat (talk) 03:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Jkl. Thank you for your work on Awair Strabain. User:Boleyn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Boleyn (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Clipper (horse) moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Clipper (horse), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. TheWikiholic (talk) 13:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Karelian Dragoon Corps moved to draftspace
Thanks for your contributions to Karelian Dragoon Corps. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it needs more sources to establish notability. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Reading Beans (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Streiff (horse) moved to draftspace
Thanks for your contributions to Streiff (horse). Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it needs more sources to establish notability and lack of inline citations. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Iazyges  Consermonor   Opus meum  06:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Clipper (horse)
Hello, Jkl. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Clipper (horse), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Streiff (horse)
Hello, Jkl. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Streiff (horse), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 07:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Karelian Dragoon Corps
Hello, Jkl. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Karelian Dragoon Corps, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Karelian Dragoon Corps

Hello, Jkl. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Karelian Dragoon Corps".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Treaty of Kolsäter moved to draftspace
Thanks for your contributions to Treaty of Kolsäter. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jkl


text: Talk:Theomania

title: Talk:Theomania