text:
Twelve Conclusions of the Lollards

The Twelve Conclusions of the Lollards is a Middle English religious text containing statements by leaders of the English medieval movement, the Lollards, inspired by teachings of John Wycliffe. The Conclusions were written in 1395. The text was presented to the Parliament of England and nailed to the doors of Westminster Abbey and St Paul's Cathedral as a placard (a typical medieval method for publishing). The manifesto suggests the expanded treatise Thirty-Seven Conclusions (Thirty-seven Articles against Corruptions in the Church ) for those that wished more in-depth information.

Twelve conclusions
The text summarizes twelve areas in which the Lollards argued that the institutional Christian Church in England needed to be reformed by parliament: the church being "leprous and blind under the maintenance of the proud prelates" bolstered by the flattering of monks ("private religion".)

First conclusion: state of the Church
The first conclusion asserts that the English Church has become too involved in affairs of temporal power ("to dote in temperalte"), led by the bad example of the Church of Rome, its stepmother. These deadly sins remove its legitimacy ("challengith the title of heritage").

Second conclusion: the priesthood
The second conclusion asserts that the ceremonies used for the ordination of priests and bishops are without scriptural basis and not the priesthood Christ ordained the apostles into. ("For the presthood of Rome is mad (made) with signis, rytis, and bisschopis blissingis." Holy orders are "the leveree (livery) of antecryst.")

Third conclusion: clerical celibacy
The third conclusion asserts that the practice of clerical celibacy has encouraged sodomy among the clergy. Churchmen need purgation or worse from their lifestyles of decadent "delicious metis and drinkis"; men who like these "like non wymmen". It is true of monks too.

Fourth conclusion: transubstantiation
The fourth conclusion asserts that the doctrine of transubstantiation induces idolatry (of the communion bread). "Frere Thomas" (Aquinas)' Feast of Corpus Christi service is "untrewe".

Fifth conclusion: exorcisms and hallowings
The fifth conclusion asserts that the exorcisms and hallowings of substances, objects and pilgrims' staves carried out by priests are a practice of necromancy (shamanism) rather than of Christian theology. Nothing can be changed to be of higher virtue than its kind.

Sixth conclusion: clerics in secular offices
The sixth conclusion asserts that it is prideful for men who hold high spiritual office in the Church to simultaneously hold positions of great temporal power: "Us thinketh that hermofodrite or ambidexter were a god name for sich manere of men of duble astate." The parliament should fully excuse all curates (pastors) "bothe heye and lowe" from temporal office, so they can look after the cure of souls and nothing else.

Seventh conclusion: prayers for the dead
The seventh conclusion asserts that prayers for the souls of specific individual deceased persons is uncharitable, since it implicitly excludes all the other blessed dead who are not being prayed for, and that the practice of requesting prayers for the dead by making financial contributions is a sort of bribery that corrupts the Church. The industry of prayers for the dead is simony and idleness: "all almes houses of Ingolond ben wikkidly igrounded".

Eighth conclusion: pilgrimages
The eighth conclusion asserts that the practices of pilgrimage, images, crucifixes, images of the trinity, and the veneration of relics approach idolatry and are far from alms-giving. Offerings should be given instead as alms to the needy, who are "the image of God in a more likenesse" than the stick or the stone.

Ninth conclusion: confession
The ninth conclusion asserts that the practice of confession for the absolution of sins is blasphemous because only God has the power to forgive sins and because if priests did have that power it would be cruel and uncharitable of them to withhold that forgiveness from anyone, even if they refused to confess.

Tenth conclusion: war, battle, and crusades
The tenth conclusion asserts that, absent a special revelation, Christians should refrain from battle and in particular wars that are given religious justifications, such as crusades, are blasphemous because Christ taught men to love and forgive their enemies. Furthermore, lords who purchase indulgences for their army's actions are robbing the poor of those funds. Similarly wrong are knights who run to slay heathens for glory (i.e. Crusaders).

Eleventh conclusion: female vows of continence and abortion
The eleventh conclusion asserts that women in the Church who have made vows of celibacy, being fickle and unperfect, become pregnant and then seeking abortions ("the most horrible synne possible to man kynde") to conceal the fact that they had broken their vows, a practice which the text strongly condemns. They should be married.

Twelfth conclusion: arts and crafts
The twelfth conclusion asserts that the multitude of crafts used by the Church causes waste, curiosity (distraction by non-essentials) and "disgysing". Only crafts necessary for simple living should be tolerated. "Us thinketh that goldsmethis and amoreris and all manere craftis nout nedeful to man…schulde be distroyd."

Versions
According to some scholars, the Twelve Conclusions were likely written in Middle English, translated to Latin for presentation to Parliament, and translated to Latin independently again for the Fasciculi zizaniorum (ascribed to Thomas Netter) which John Foxe then re-translated back to (Elizabethan, Early Modern) English for his Acts and Monuments collection.

General Prologue to the Wycliffe Bible
The so-called General Prologue of the Wycliffe Bible found on some later version (LV) manuscripts (1395) gives an allusion to the Lollard Twelve Conclusions by the use of the words "last parliament". It gives an indication that the General Prologue was written in 1395–1397 for the previous parliament that just took place in 1395 and before the next parliament that took place in 1397. The Twelve Conclusions and its expanded version of Thirty-Seven Conclusions have been attributed to the presumed author of the General Prologue of the Wycliffe Bible, John Purvey, written 1395.

title: Twelve Conclusions of the Lollards


text:
User talk:HurricaneJeanne

Have something to say?

2040 Atlantic Hurricane Season
How much was the crystal ball? ;-) --GraemeL (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

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 have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 21:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Sorpiland
Sorpiland has been proposed for deletion. An editor felt this website might not be notable enough for an article. Please review WP:WEB for the relevant guidelines. If you can improve the article to address these concerns, please do so.

If no one objects to the deletion within five days by removing the prod notice, the article may be deleted without further discussion. NickelShoe 23:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Fish userboxes
Hi HJ,

I thought you might be interested in two new fish userboxes. Here's one for fish User:UBX/Fish owner and one for Bettas User:UBX/Betta owner If you're interested in help with making any other userboxes, let me know and I'll see what I can do. Cheers, Rfrisbietalk 00:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the PCP!
Thanks for joining the Pokémon Collaborative Project! We hope you have a great time editing Pokémon articles. If you have any questions about the articles, style, content, or simply what our favourite Pokémon are (our opinions vary, trust us!), leave a message on the project talk page. Cheers, and happy editing! --Brandon Dilbeck 03:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Pokemonwallace.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Pokemonwallace.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 09:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh hey, cool, another person who's an English major who has a hobby of meteorology!
BTW, outta curiosity, is your real name Jeanne or did you pick that at random from the hurricane list? You said your favorite subject is English and I'm assuming you're college age and that's your major. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

 * Oh hey, the user that wrote that is me, but I wasn't logged in yet. Feel free to either put your reply here or on my talk page whichever works best for you. MVillani1985 10:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Nevermind, I read that you're in high school. Sorry about that little mistake. Anyhow, do you plan on majoring in English? MVillani1985 22:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Your birthday is also exactly one month after mine. Mine is May 22, 1985. I seem to know several people born on a 22nd of a month. My oldest niece was born on February 22 (George Washington's birthday), for example.

 * That last one was from me, too. I'm just purely curious here but do you still check your talk page? BTW your profile is cool. --MVillani1985 04:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Lavaridgetown.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Lavaridgetown.png. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. MECU ≈ talk 23:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Lilycovecity.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Lilycovecity.png. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. MECU ≈ talk 23:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Masukippa.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Masukippa.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 06:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Tatetopusu.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Tatetopusu.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 06:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Zugaidosu.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Zugaidosu.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 06:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Minomutchi.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Minomutchi.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 06:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Pokemonmahoganytown.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Pokemonmahoganytown.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 06:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Pokemonvioletcity.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Pokemonvioletcity.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 06:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Pokemonnewbarktown.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Pokemonnewbarktown.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 06:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Pokemoncherrygrovecity.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Pokemoncherrygrovecity.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 06:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Pokemonazaleatown.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Pokemonazaleatown.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 06:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Pokemongoldenrodcity.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Pokemongoldenrodcity.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 06:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Pokemonecruteakcity.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Pokemonecruteakcity.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 06:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Pokemonolivinecity.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Pokemonolivinecity.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 07:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Pokemonblackthorncity.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Pokemonblackthorncity.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 07:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Pokemonwhirlislands.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Pokemonwhirlislands.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 07:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Mossdeepcity.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Mossdeepcity.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 07:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Rustborocity.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Rustborocity.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 07:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Pacifidlogtown.PNG)
Thanks for uploading Image:Pacifidlogtown.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 07:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Leelajamescd.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Leelajamescd.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Poochyena&shroomish.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Poochyena&shroomish.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:POKE is doing some housecleaning
This notice is to inform you that because many people have added their names to WikiProject Pokémon but do not seem to be active, all names are being deleted in an effort to find out who is still truly interested in the project. All you have to do is re-add your name if you'd still like to be considered a member of WP:POKE. Any questions, you can contact me on my talk page. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 17:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Pokemonflannery.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading Image:Pokemonflannery.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Jay32183 20:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Pokemonwinona.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading Image:Pokemonwinona.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Jay32183 20:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Brandicarlilethestory0.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Brandicarlilethestory0.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Redumbrella.PNG)
Thanks for uploading Image:Redumbrella.PNG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Foxandthehound2.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Foxandthehound2.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 13:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Thegrudge2 dvd.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Thegrudge2 dvd.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Contest hall.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Contest hall.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

R.I.P. Jeanne
If the message on the front page is real, and not vandalism, I'd like to say RIP Jeanne, I'd have liked to have gotten to know you because you seemed like a really cool person and I hope that you're finding peace on the other side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.221.246 (talk) 12:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lilostich grandcouncilwoman.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Lilostich grandcouncilwoman.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 06:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kelly Cass

The article Kelly Cass has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days 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/dated tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one.  J 947(c) (m) 00:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Kelly Cass for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kelly Cass is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Kelly Cass until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. —Guanaco 02:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Animalcrossingfilm poster.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Animalcrossingfilm poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:HurricaneJeanne


text:
Talk:La Chacarita Cemetery

Vandalism
"Marc Etcheverry (1989-2005), software designer" was added to the list, please check as was from same IP picked up for page vandalism a few minutes earlier. Alf 21:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks! -Mariano 08:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

National Cemetery
Is this cemetery managed by the Argentinian government? --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 17:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Yes the Chacarita Cemetery is Managed by the Municipality of the city of Buenos Aires. The British and the German Cemetery are run by Ad-Honorem Commeettees.WilliamWallace2011 (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So the answer is no, then, if it is municipally run. However, the Municipality of Buenos Aires is, besides being a municipal council, a regional government, equivalent to a state government in the United States.  Skinsmoke (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Correcting Facts
Im sure its 50 hectares all the Chacarita Cemetery including the British and Gereman Cemetery. Only the British and German together has around 5. The British Cemetery has about a 100mts aprox front and 200mts aprox to the back so... all the chacarita cemetery cannot be only 5 hectares... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.139.91.98 (talk) 00:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

How many are there?
Does anyone know how many people are buried there? (approximately)186.136.132.134 (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:La Chacarita Cemetery


text:
The Mighty Celt

The Mighty Celt is a 2005 drama film set in Northern Ireland, written and directed by Pearse Elliott. It stars Gillian Anderson, Robert Carlyle, Sean McGinley, Ken Stott and Tyrone McKenna. It is centred on greyhound racing in a Catholic community after the intercommunal "Troubles" have ended but where their legacy remains strong. The film was well received in Ireland, with Gillian Anderson receiving an IFTA Award for Best International Actress. The film's title is based on the name of a comic book shown in the movie.

The greyhound scenes were filmed at Ballyskeagh Greyhound track.

Cast

 * Robert Carlyle as O
 * Gillian Anderson as Kate
 * Ken Stott as Good Joe
 * Tyrone McKenna as Donal

Reception
On review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an 67% approval rating based on 6 reviews, with an average ranking of 5.7/10.

William Thomas of Empire wrote "There's promise in the bursts of dark humour, but these are few and far between, only serving to remind us how much better directors like Ken Loach have dealt with the coming-of-age genre".

title: The Mighty Celt


text:
Burdur

Burdur is a city in southwestern Turkey. The seat of Burdur Province and of Burdur District, it is located on the shore of Lake Burdur. Its population is 95,436 (2021).

Ancient history
Whilst there is evidence of habitation in the province dating back to 6500 BC, the earliest sign of habitation in the city itself dates to Early Bronze Age. Artifacts from this period have been found in the site of today's railway station. In antiquity, the area was part of the region of Pisidia. It has been proposed that the city of Burdur has changed location a number of times; the ancient city of Limnombria ("Lake City") was closer to Lake Burdur than the modern city. It is known that in the Byzantine era, the city existed with the name Polydorion, from which the current name is derived. No remains of Polydorion survive to this day. Burdur may also occupy the site of a town called Praetoria.

Turkish settlement and the Hamidids
The history of the urban development of Burdur is generally held to begin with the Turkish settlement after the Seljuq victory at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071. In the late 11th century, the Kınalı tribe of the Oghuz Turks captured the Burdur area and settled there. Turks became the majority of the population of the area after 1211, establishing a number of villages in addition to expanding the town. The first Turkish settlement was in an area known as Hamam Bendi that had a lower elevation than today's city but was farther to the lake than the ancient town of Limnombria. These residents used the site of today's Grand Mosque of Burdur as an open marketplace, known as Alanpazarı. Realising the high incidence of malaria in the area they had settled, these residents then moved uphill, away from the lake. These first residents had not submitted to any state, but Kilij Arslan II, the Seljuq Sultan of Rum, captured the area in 1177 and imposed his sovereignty over the local tribes. The town remained under the undisputed sovereignty of the Sultanate of Rum between 1206 and 1260, when it was captured by the Mongol Empire. Developing commerce in the port of Antalya increased the significance of Burdur as a centre of commerce. Tragacanth obtained from the mountains of Psidia, wine from Kütahya, wax, wood and tar from many parts of Anatolia passed through Burdur, in exchange of which Egyptian spices, cotton and sugar was traded.

In 1300, the Hamidids under Dündar Bey captured Burdur. Dündar Bey had the Grand Mosque of Burdur built around a hilly area in 1300, and the town subsequently developed around the mosque. The Hamidids administered Burdur as a district under the town of Eğirdir. The Ilkhanate then captured Burdur in 1324 under the governor of Anatolia, Timurtash. Dündar Bey's son, İshak Çelebi, recaptured Burdur in 1328. Traveller Ibn Battuta visited the town in 1330. In the account of his visit, he described Burdur as a town blessed with natural beauty and a number of orchards and farms, centred around the Burdur Castle near the Grand Mosque. No trace of the castle remains today except for the names of some of the streets, indicating that with the lack of a strategic requirement for a castle, it was gradually destroyed. The account also indicates the presence of a guild of ahis controlling commerce and production. By comparing the description of Burdur with the presentation of other cities such as Eğirdir, Isparta and Denizli, it can be deduced that Burdur was a relatively minor urban centre with limited commerce. It was, nevertheless, still a stop on the trade route between Konya, the cities of the Black Sea and the ports of the Aegean Sea.

Burdur was captured by the Ottoman Empire in 1391, when Bayezid I conquered the Hamidids. It was initially a district centre and a small town under the Sanjak of Hamid. As of 1478, Burdur had four quarters, three being Muslim and one being Christian. The largest of these was the Cami ("Mosque") quarter of the Muslims.

There was a small Greek population living in the city until the Population exchange between Greece and Turkey. An abandoned Greek church in the city has been turned into a museum with a giant dinosaur fossil a few years ago.

Climate
Burdur has a hot summer mediterranean climate (Köppen climate classification: Csa) or a temperate oceanic climate (Trewartha climate classification: Do). It has chilly, wet and often snowy winters and hot, long and dry summers.

Education
Mehmet Akif Ersoy University is located in Burdur.

Notable residents

 * Burdurlu Dervish Mehmed Pasha Ottoman Grand Vizier 1818-1820
 * Burdurlu Ahmet Şükrü Pasha Ottoman Military Doctor, with major improvements in medical awards

title: Burdur


text:
Jacques Borel

Jacques Borel (17 December 1925 in Paris – 25 September 2002) was a French author best known for his 1965 novel L'Adoration (translated into English as The Bond), which won the Prix Goncourt.

title: Jacques Borel


text:
User talk:Ktrapszo

Welcome to Wikipedia!
Hello Kasia Trapszo (aka ), welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips:
 * Take a look at the Simplified Ruleset.
 * Read the Tutorial, How to edit a page and the Manual of Style.
 * Find out how to revert, move and merge pages.
 * Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
 * Add yourself to the New user log and a regional notice board
 * Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk.
 * Use the Show preview button
 * Provide an Edit summary
 * Add the correct image copyright tag to any images you upload
 * Create a User page
 * Be bold
 * Ignore all rules

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the  link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing, --Paul Laudanski 21:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ktrapszo


text:
Coinstar

Coinstar, LLC (formerly Outerwall, Inc.) is an American company operating coin-cashing machines.

Coinstar's focus is the conversion of loose change into paper currency, donations, and gift cards via coin counter kiosks which deduct a fee for conversion of coins to banknotes; it processes $2.7 billion worth of coins annually. The company also operates Coinstar Exchange for gift cards. Coinstar's kiosks are in the front of stores (between the cash registers and the exit/entrance). The company has more than 60,000 kiosks offering a variety of services in the US, UK, Canada, Puerto Rico, Mexico, and the Eurozone. Coinstar also produces machines that provide prepaid credit cards and e-payment kiosks.

On July 2, 2013, Coinstar changed its name to Outerwall and started trading on the NASDAQ as OUTR.

On September 27, 2016, Apollo Global Management, LLC acquired Outerwall, Inc. and de-listed from NASDAQ. After the acquisition, former components of Outerwall—Redbox, Coinstar, and ecoATM (which includes Gazelle)—became separate business entities.

History
The company was founded in 1991 as Coinstar, Inc. and is headquartered in Bellevue, Washington.

Outerwall cooperated with the US Mint in the introduction of the Golden Dollar at the beginning of the millennium and encouraged people to use coins rather than notes.

In February 2009, Coinstar purchased all remaining shares of DVD rental kiosk company Redbox for $175 million from McDonald's Corporation, making Outerwall the sole owner. Prior to this, Coinstar and McDonald's each owned 47% of Redbox shares, with various other parties owning the remaining 6%.

In September 2009, Coinstar sold its entertainment business, which included skill cranes and bulk vending, to three entrepreneurs, a month after the business was renamed National Entertainment Network.

Outerwall
On June 28, 2013, shareholders voted to change the company name from Coinstar to Outerwall. On July 2, 2013, Outerwall acquired mobile phone recycling kiosk operator ecoATM, for $350 million (not including debt).

On October 7, 2013, Barry Rosenstein's hedge fund JANA Partners filed a 13D on shares of Outerwall (OUTR) and disclosed a new 13.5% ownership stake in OUTR with 3,777,995 shares. The activist 13D filing indicated that JANA expected to talk with management—in particular, that they wanted to focus on "a review of strategic alternatives including exploring a strategic transaction, selling or discontinuing certain businesses, or pursuing a sale." Subsequently, on December 9, 2013, Outerwall's former CEO, J. Scott Di Valerio, announced it would discontinue three new ventures: Redbox's Rubi, Crisp Market, and Star Studio, and lay off 8.5% of its workforce.

Coinstar
In late September 2016, Outerwall announced CEO Erik E. Prusch would be leaving the company as part of the company's acquisition by Apollo Global Management. Outerwall's subsidiaries, Redbox, and ecoATM, were separated into stand alone companies as was Coinstar.

Coinstar kiosks
The typical Coinstar coin-cashing kiosk is green (blue in the UK) and the size of a large vending machine. They are located at grocery stores, drug stores, larger merchants, banks or other retail locations. The coin-counting service is available in the US (including Puerto Rico), Canada, the UK, and the Eurozone.

To process coins, loose change is poured into the machine. In the United States, the machine accepts all denominations of coins from one-cent coins to one-dollar coins, its only restriction being 1943 steel cents and Eisenhower Dollars. When the machine finishes counting coins, it issues a scrip, called a voucher, which the user can redeem at the place of business providing the coin-counting service at face value for currency. The same mode of operation and redemption is provided on those Coinstar machines situated in Great Britain, Canada, Eurozone, and Puerto Rico.

The coin-counting processing fee, deducted from the total once coins have been counted, is 12.5% in the US, 11.9% in Canada, 10.9% in Ireland, and 10.9% in the UK, unless the kiosk is located inside a bank branch, in which case this fee will not apply for account holders and the money can be directly deposited into an account by a teller. Some machines may offer a lower rate; in this case the store hosting the machine has subsidized the rate.

A newer service enables users to use their coins to buy a gift card from merchants without the usual fee ("no fee") — including such retailers as Starbucks, Amazon.com, Banana Republic, Gap, Regal Entertainment Group, Old Navy, iTunes, J.C. Penney, CVS Pharmacy, and Overstock.com. Select grocery retailers, including SuperValu and Stop & Shop, are also participating in the "no fee" offers. If the user chooses the fee-free option, the machine issues a plastic gift card or, in the case of online merchants like Amazon.com, a voucher with a redemption code valid only for a single use, where after any remaining balance is forfeit regardless of amount.

US and UK users also have the option of donating their change to a selected charity. By 2006, Outerwall has raised more than $20 million for charities including the American Red Cross Disaster Relief fund, Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, and UNICEF's Trick or Treat program.

Outerwall has processed more than 350 billion coins in its nearly two decades of operation, with an average transaction amount of about $38. The largest single transaction was $13,000 in pennies from a man in Alabama.

As of August 2021, more than 7,000 Coinstar kiosks in 46 states were equipped with Coinme, enabling customers to convert cash to cryptocurrency.

Competition
In some sections of the UK, regional banks have begun offering free coin-counting services in the amount of a gift card. Refunds are often given in cash rather than in the form of a gift card. In some cases, it is not even necessary for the customer to have an account at the bank; the free service is offered as a way to attract new business from individuals who are not current account holders. TD Bank's "Penny Arcade" coin counters were free and available to both customers and non-customers in many branches, but as of November 2010, the bank charges a 6% fee for non-customers to use the machine. In May 2016, in the wake of a New York state lawsuit over accuracy, TD Bank said that it had suspended use of its Penny Arcade machines and would be removing them from all of its locations.

Publicity
On May 9, 2006, Outerwall sued rival Coin X change over a patent dispute around the use of voucher-issuing machines, remote reporting of the coin machines' status and anti-counterfeiting technology for printed vouchers.

To generate publicity, Outerwall offered to cash in over 1.3 million pennies collected over four decades by Flomaton, Alabama resident Edmond Knowles after Knowles's bank refused to cash them in. The armored truck sent by Outerwall to Knowles's home sank into the mud in his yard after being loaded with the 4.5-ton collection, and needed to be rescued by a tow truck.

On March 14, 2008, an employee was arrested for stealing $441,000 from Coinstar machines in Washington, Oregon, and California. The employee was accused of illegally accessing the Coinstar machines' cash boxes ahead of armored car pickups.

On March 25, 2008, Roy Disney used his Shamrock Activist Value Fund of Burbank to ask for changes in Outerwall's corporate governance.

title: Coinstar


text:
Talk:John the Fearless

Why the long face?
The image File:John duke of burgundy.jpg is distorted, elongated. It was taken from a site displaying it that way. This site shows the portrait in its actual proportions. 84.75.191.239 (talk) 08:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced information added to sourced sentence
User:Cristiano Tomás add this, "..and Willem van der Haegan, by Margarida de Borsele" into a referenced sentence, thus user:Victar added more unsourced information and since he did not check what the Vaughan source actually stated wrote this, "Author Richard Vaughan in his book, John the Fearless: The Growth of Burgundian Power, claims John of Burgundy was the father of Willem van der Haegen, by Margereta van Borsselen."~ref>Richard Vaughan, John the Fearless: The Growth of Burgundian Power, Vol.2, (Boydell Press, 2005), 236.</ref~, "however this does not fit chronologically has Willem was born at least 11 years after the death of John.".

Vaughan makes NO mention of Willen van der Haegen and only mentions that John had 3 children by Margereta van Borsselen, but does not mention their names.

In the future some simply fact checking instead of outlandish claims would suffice. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? Medlands, unauthored, non-peer reviewed, unpublished tripe? Why even waste the time using real sources? Let veterinarians write history! --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

 * Along with using Medlands, it appears user:Victar has added a source, incorrectly attributed to the wrong book(it should be Philip the Good by Vaughan), that does not make any mention of the following(ie. source misrepresentation):

 * "Antoine of Burgundy" ~Vaughan, Richard (2005). John the Fearless The Growth of Burgundian Power 2. Philip the Good. Boydell Press. p. 134.
 * After waiting since 2 September for a response from Victar concerning the unreliable Medlands source, I will be removing it. Also, Léon de Laborde, (1849), is terribly outdated and de Laborde does not appear to have been an historian. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

 * This source, Decq, Auguste (1859). Annuaire de la noblesse de Belgique 13. Muquardt., is not written by Auguste Decq, that is the name of the publisher. It was written by Isidore de Stein d'Altenstein, who was not an historian. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

 * My comments here still stand. I've fixed the de Stein source, but by no means should it be removed. Annuaire de la noblesse de Belgique is a well cited book, with over 60 citations on Wikipedia. Les Ducs de Bourgogne by de Laborde is also cited at least a dozen times and since when is a book on medieval genealogy outdated? --Victar (talk) 23:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's is not "your comment" it is a discussion as to whether Medlands was a reliable source. Which ended without consensus.
 * Apparently you can not read, "..de Laborde does not appear to have been an historian ", "It was written by Isidore de Stein d'Altenstein, who was not an historian ". Same as Medlands. Odd you continue to ignore these facts!
 * " Annuaire de la noblesse de Belgique is a well cited book, with over 60 citations on Wikipedia."
 * So? Alison Weir, a writer, continues to be used as a historical source. She is not a historian and her "historical theories" have been proven wrong time and time again. So your arguments, "with over 60 citations on Wikipedia", "is also cited at least a dozen times", are invalid. Your ignorance of what makes a reliable source is the problem. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, you come up with these fabricated rules and falsely assert yourself using them. No where does it state that you can't cite published historical works of non-historians. To quote Identifying_reliable_sources_(history), "Historical scholarship may include: Publications by non-academic historians in popular modes, demonstrated as accepted by the general scholarly community by repeated reviews over time of that non-academic historian's work in scholarly peer-reviewed journals". Both of those books are cited by scholars ad nauseam. Victar (talk) 00:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And you can not read, "...Philip's two oldest bastards, Cornille and Anthony..." are not John's children.
 * "''Historical scholarship is:
 * Books published by academic and scholarly presses by historians, as reviewed in scholarly historical journals or as demonstrated by past works of a similar nature by the historian. Historians carry out original research, often using primary sources. They usually have a PhD or advanced academic training in historiography.
 * Chapters in books published by academic and scholarly presses by or edited by historians, as reviewed in scholarly historical journals or as demonstrated by past works of a similar nature by the historian or editors
 * Research articles by historians in scholarly peer-reviewed journals
 * Books, book chapters and articles by social scientists and scholars in the humanities, working within their area of expertise
 * Other works that are recognised as scholarship by other historians (by review or discussion), which were reviewed or edited by a scholarly press or committee before publication.
 * Historical scholarship is generally not:
 * Journalism
 * Opinion pieces by non-scholars
 * Popular works that were not reviewed, especially works by journalists, or memoirs—these may be useful to supplement an article that relies upon scholarly sources
 * Any primary source; however primary sources may be used in accord with the WP:Primary rules. This includes primary source collections, or the primary source sections or appendixes of otherwise scholarly texts
 * Annotated editions of primary sources, with the exception of the explicit annotations
 * Online editions of primary sources produced by libraries and archives.

To determine scholarly opinions about a historical topic, consult the following sources in order:
 * 1) Recent scholarly books and chapters on the historiography of the topic
 * 2) "Review Articles", or historiographical essays that explicitly discuss recent scholarship in an area.
 * 3) Similarly conference papers that were peer reviewed in full before publication that are field reviews or have as their central argument the historiography
 * 4) Journal articles or peer reviewed conference papers that open with a review of the historiography.
 * 5) Earlier scholarly books and chapters on the historiography of the topic
 * 6) Single item "book reviews" written by scholars that explicitly discuss recent scholarship in an area.
 * 7) Introductions to major scholarly works on the topic or introductions to edited collections of chapters often represent a survey of the historiography
 * 8) Signed articles in scholarly encyclopaedias
 * Looks like you missed a lot from the link you supplied. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley

Have you looked up the conversations at WP:RS/N? Probably best to start with Template talk:Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley.
 * Short answer:

I looked through your edit history to see what sparked this question and came across this: John the Fearless history. My point in the discussions is that Cawley is an unreliable source. But his sources can be reliable. So in my opinion he is a case for SAYWHEREYOUREADIT.
 * Longer answer:

If Cawley is used outside SAYWHEREYOUREADIT ie as an unsupported source then I think you should not immediately remove his unsupported citations but instead turn on the flag. After a suitable length of time as mentioned in WP:PROVIT not only should the citation be removed but also the text that it supports.

Where Cawley is used to support SAYWHEREYOUREADIT then long term the source he cites needs to be accessed (so Cawley can be removed), or another more reliable source that cites the reliable source needs to be used in place of Cawley.

Cawley also speculates on relationships (POV), and also makes assertions (facts) without the support of reliable sources, which if he were a Wikipedia editor would be a SYN.

The point is that the Cawley is a self appointed researcher, I think that his input should not be treated as reliable but rather as if he were a Wikipeida editor (and his research should be treated as if he were). I am willing to take his sources on a SAYWHEREYOUREADIT, to be replaced as soon as possible, but otherwise he ought not to be used as a source.

-- PBS (talk) 06:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

 * Just checking in because User:Victar asked me to look at this discussion, I think because I was involved in past discussions on this subject. I can not see what the particular example was so I can only speak in generalities. I think it is correct that we need to be careful about this source for the reasons given by PBS (no editorial process, it is a one man project, and quite openly an on-going one, not a finished work), but I also think it is very useful for finding other sources that are more compatible with our RS policy. (Try to find secondary ones of course, especially for complex subjects. But often primary sources can be used on simple matters, depending on the case.) As a side issue I do wonder about whether we should jointly cite helpful sources which lead us to reliable sources, under the general philosophy of "say where you read it" (as well as avoiding plagiarism) but I know many Wikipedians do not believe this is the Wikipedia way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, have looked at the John the Fearless discussion and am not sure what the fuss is about really. Which points are being called unsourceable? (Or is it resolved?) A quick google for JEAN de BOURGOGNE, Bishop of CAMBRAI seems to give a lot of hits and some mention his parentage.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * https://books.google.be/books?id=5R_2clxgcr4C&pg=PA277
 * https://books.google.be/books?id=F4Wvl-xRpAoC&pg=PA118

To keep this conversation in one place, this was the message posted by Victar to User talk:Andrew Lancaster:  Sorry to trouble you, but could you comment on User_talk:Kansas_Bear's talk page about citing MedLands? From what I read on Template_talk:Medieval_Lands_by_Charles_Cawley, it seems acceptable, particularly if you use it as a secondary source. Thanks for your time. --Victar (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Victar the question is not "is Cawley a secondary source" clearly Cawley is a source and he is not a primary one. The question is is does Cawley's web publications meet the requirements of a Wikiepdia reliable source? He does not! But the sources he cites which are often primary sources which are reliable providing they are used in a way described in WP:PSTS, in which case SAYWHEREYOUREADIT applies. The content of Cawley to date like Lundy's The Peerage and Rayment have proved to be by and large accurate when cross checked against more reliable sources where available. So citing them citing their sources is an adequate temporary measure until better sources can be found. However like Cawley, Lundy sometimes either provides information without a source or relies on email correspondence, which is not a Wikipedia reliable source, and so those facts supported only by such unreliable sources should not be included in a Wikipedia article. -- PBS (talk) 10:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

 * Thanks to you both for taking the time to comment. The MedLands source is the most comprehensive and complete source, and in English to boot, so I think it's a good source to keep, and with the primary sources listed, I don't think the content deserves being deleted either, as User:Kansas Bear insists. Victar (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

 * Clearly Victar refuses to get the point. "The question is is does Cawley's web publications meet the requirements of a Wikiepdia reliable source? He does not!", "However like Cawley, Lundy sometimes either provides information without a source or relies on email correspondence, which is not a Wikipedia reliable source, and so those facts supported only by such unreliable sources should not be included in a Wikipedia article."
 * I brought up the point that John the Fearless' children did not have a citation on 2 September, "AND, the Medlands article in particular does NOT give a citation for the section of John the Fearless' children legitimate or otherwise." --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

 * No, Kansas Bear, what you did is immediately deleted the Cawley source without having a conversation first, which is contrary to what PBS cites a proper protocol, which is adding a warning. I reverted and worked to find the primary sources and added those, and your reverted my content again. If anything, you should be suspended for edit warring. And that's where we are. If PBS and Andrew Lancaster agree that the Cawley source should be removed, now that we have primary sources, I can agree with that judgement. All I was saying is that it's a clear and comprehensive source that might be valuable to have, if indeed the line is blurry, as Andrew Lancaster alluded too. The bottom line is, the content is sourced, by both primary sources and Cawley, and should not be deleted, as you continue to insist without grounds and maliciously. Victar (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

 * Again, you have a problem reading, I posted my concerns on the talk page and waited 11 days. All you have is your interpretation of a discussion, and your continued refusal to get the point. FYI, there are no sources on Medlands concerning John the Fearless' children, more original research.
 * "The bottom line is, the content is sourced, by both primary sources and Cawley, and should not be deleted, as you continue to insist without grounds and maliciously.". I see no sources in Medlands over the three illegitimate children....
 * Taken directly from Medlands:

Duke Jean had three illegitimate children by Mistress (2): 10. GUY bâtard de Bourgogne (-killed in battle Calais 1436). Heer van Kruybeke. m JOHANNA, illegitimate, daughter of ALBERT Comte de Hainaut, Count of Holland & his mistress ---. Guy & his wife had one child: a) PHILIPPE de Bourgogne . Heer van Kruybeke.  m ANNA van Baenst, daughter of ---. 11. ANTOINE bâtard de Bourgogne  . 12. PHILIPOTTE bâtarde de Bourgogne .  Dame de Joncy.  m (30 Jul 1429) ANTOINE de Rochebaron Baron de Berze-le-Chatel, son of ---.
 * I see no citations for these children. Which the the exact concern PBS mentioned, did you miss that? --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

 * That is completely false, as clearly illustrated in the revisions. You only engaged in conversation after you unjustly reverted my content. You again seem fail to understand the situation. Never did I claim the Cawley listed primary sources. I went back and listed the sources Vaughan 2005 provided, as well as sources from Google Books, and even after that you reverted the content, engaging in edit wars. I'm going to let PBS and Andrew Lancaster comment before wasting my time more on this argument. Victar (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

 * Not at all. I removed an unreliable source, then went to the talk page. You, however, after not making any edits on Wikipedia or it's talk pages(since 2 Sept), reverted my edit, then went to the talk page(12 days late!), parroting a conversation stating this was your "comment".
 * "what you did is immediately deleted the Cawley source without having a conversation first"
 * You mean the one you ignored for 12 days? LMAO. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

 * "I removed an unreliable source, then went to the talk page."
 * Exactly so! Even though PBS clearly says above the proper action would have been to tag the source with a warning and look for a proper sources, which is EXACTLY what I did, yet you continued to revert the content. Victar (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear,Andrew Lancaster and Victar as the discussion has moved onto a specific case I have copied to conversation here as I think this talk page is a more appropriate place for it than user space to talk about the sourcing of a specific article. -- PBS (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Kansas Bear and Victar lets have no more accusations and counter accusations of bad faith, it will not help resolve this issue. I think that two points need to be raised. The first is Victar do you now accept that Cawley on his own does not meet the requirements of a Wikipedia reliable source? The second is that the section in Cawley used for a citation: carries next to no citations to reliable sources (ie Cawley is not saying "I got the information it from this source" but rather "trust me, I know I am correct").

I have today looked up and ported to wikisource the original EB1911 article it can be found at 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/John, Duke of Burgundy. I have done this because if one looks back over the history of this article it started out as a copy of the EB1911 article. I then ran the "Earwig's Copyvio Detector" over the two pages and I have placed citation on the text that is obviously copied from EB1911. More of the text can almost certainly be supported by EB1911, but I leave that to those who are more interested in this article than I am.

I have also used the source to add EB1911 citations to all but one of the legitimate children. So that removes them by and large from this discussion. We now come to the mistresses and illegitimate children. As benefits a tertiary source EB1911 is a summary and the author, René Poupardin, chose not to include anything about these mistresses and children, presumably because either the secondary sources EB1911 used did not mention them or the details were not considered notable enough to be mentioned.

Are any of these considered to be notable in a standard reliable secondary source (like a biography of this man)? -- PBS (talk) 18:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

 * Thanks, PBS, for coping the talk content over.
 * "Victar do you now accept that Cawley on his own does not meet the requirements". I've never not excepted that. What I objected to was Kansas Bear deleting the content without putting a warning first, then after I found new secondary sources, deleting the content once again regardless.
 * I don't think anyone contends that John of Burgundy, Bishop of Cambrai was his son, as it's well documented. The issue is Margereta van Borsselen and her reputed children with John the Fearless. Vaughan 2005, which is peer reviewed, mentions both Guy of Burgundy and Philipotte of Burgundy. All of John's bastard children, including Antoine are mentioned in de Stein d'Altenstein, Isidore (1859), which I gather to be also Cawley's main source. Isidore de Stein d'Altenstein is known for not always being correct, as the case with many 19th century genealogists, but I think he should be marked as such and not deleted, while we continue to look for better sources. Victar (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Before you expanded the article with this edit on 1 September 2015 the artilce had said for several years: {{quotation|John also had several illegitimate children, including John of Burgundy, Bishop of Cambrai, by his mistress Agnes de Croy, daughter of Jean I de Croÿ, and Willem van der Haegen, by Margarida de Borsele. }

}} What is the reason for including the additional names? ie how are they notable? -- PBS (talk) 19:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no clue about Willem van der Haegen. It's that mis-citation that drew me to the page. I didn't have the book at the time, so I couldn't contend it outright.
 * All the illegitimate children are noteworthy, having married high, with the exception of Antoine, who was allegedly a knight in the order of Saint-Jean de Jérusalem. Victar (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Editor trying to make a point with citation overkill?
Is there a reason for the multitude of sources for John's illegitamite children? Four citations for this: When clearly the Vaughan source is sufficient. Seven citations for this sentence: When clearly Sommé, Monique (1998). Isabelle de Portugal, duchesse de Bourgogne une femme au pouvoir au XVe siècle. Presses universitaires du Septentrion. p. 69, is sufficient. Six citations for this sentence: When the Vaughan and Kasten, Brigitte (2008). Herrscher- und Fürstentestamente im westeuropäischen Mittelalter. Böhlau Verlag Köln Weimar. p. 478, are sufficient. Five citations for this sentence: "Philipotte of Burgundy, Lady of Joncy, married Antoine of Rochebaron, Baron of Berze-le-Chatel"[3][11][8][9][13] When the Somme and Vaughan sources are sufficient. This appears to be citation overkill, which is unnecessary. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "John and his mistress Agnes de Croy, daughter of Jean I de Croÿ, had the following child:"[3][4][5]
 * "John of Burgundy, Bishop of Cambrai"[6]
 * "John and his mistress Marguerite de Borsele had the following children:"[7][3][4][8][9][10][5]
 * "Guy of Burgundy, Lord of Kruybeke (killed in battle Calais 1436), married Johanna, illegitimate daughter of Albert I, Duke of Bavaria"[3][11][12][8][13][10]

 * Given this talk page, I disagree don't entirely agree with your claim of over-citation. I could probably remove some double citations though. --Victar (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've used most of your suggestions, but kept a couple of citations that I think are worth keeping, such as de Stein d'Altenstein (1859), which is the source of many modern citations. Victar (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't care if you agree or not. Medlands which has been labeled as unreliable is not needed and neither is Stein. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

 * You don't have the authority to make that decision on your own. Victar (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Authority? You mean ignore a talk page discussion for over a week, revert to your preferred version, then post your opinion? Medlands was labeled as unreliable, there are other reliable sources present, therefore Medlands is not needed. Stein is not needed either since other more modern sources are present. Just because you don't like it is not a reason for citation overkill. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If you actually read through the various discussions, there is no ruling decision that says Medlands should not be used as a source, particularly as a secondary source. See Template_talk:Medieval_Lands_by_Charles_Cawley and Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_135. Therefore, a decision to remove Medlands as a source should be made as a consensus and not on one person's lone authority.
 * In regards to de Stein, again, since when should an important source on a historical person be excluded on the basis of being old? Victar (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's your opinion that de Stein is "an important source". And since there are more modern sources available, it is not needed. Odd you don't seem to be reading any of this.
 * "The point is that the Cawley is a self appointed researcher, I think that his input should not be treated as reliable but rather as if he were a Wikipeida editor (and his research should be treated as if he were). I am willing to take his sources on a SAYWHEREYOUREADIT, to be replaced as soon as possible, but otherwise he ought not to be used as a source .PBS (talk) 06:55, 15September 2015"
 * You don't seem to be reading this either.
 * Guess you missed that point, again. Oh, and canvassing support by distorting the real reason for this discussion will not go well. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Taken from Revision as of 06:02, 18 September 2015;
 * "Cawley, Charles, Burgundy Duchy, Dukes, Foundation for Medieval Genealogy, retrieved September 2015,[better source needed]"
 * See that part that says "better source needed".
 * There are better sources present, thus Medlands is not needed. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is one end of the argument, which PBS makes in his opening statement on the page linked above, but the various rebuttals to it on the page are also valid. Again, my argument is that there is no one definiative decision on the inclusion of Medlands sources, and thus should not be removed outright. I don't see why you continue to deny this. Victar (talk) 16:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Seems to me you are confused, editwarring and canvassing for ownership of this article: So what were you saying?? --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "I think that two points need to be raised. The first is Victar do you now accept that Cawley on his own does not meet the requirements of a Wikipedia reliable source? The second is that the section in Cawley used for a citation:carries next to no citations to reliable sources (ie Cawley is not saying "I got the information it from this source" but rather "trust me, I know I am correct")."PBS
 * "I've never not excepted that. What I objected to was Kansas Bear deleting the content without putting a warning first, then after I found new secondary sources, deleting the content once again regardless." Victar
 * Hi, Victar asked me to look in so I have done so. I'll make a couple of points briefly:
 * Citation overkill is a real problem. Speaking personally, as someone who researches and writes about history, I use Wikipedia a lot, but if I see five footnotes following a statement on Wikipedia, I assume that the statement is dubious and the article is probably not much use to me.
 * On the other hand, if a source has been largely used in building up an article, to eliminate all mention of that source would be plagiarism: it is one of our tasks to credit our sources.
 * The answer with Medlands is to cite it in a footnote if it has given us some detail that no one else has given us, and to mention it among external links if it helped us significantly to develop the article. All sources in this world of ours are imperfect, but "better source needed" does not mean "unreliable source". Andrew Dalby 17:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Andrew, for the reply. Much appreciated. After looking it over, I can agree with Kansas Bear in regards to citation overkill, and took nearly all of his editing advice, with the exception of the Medlands and de Stein sources. The Medlands source I think should be kept because it's the only source that compiles the data together as shown in the Wikipedia article, and thus the most complete and comprehensive. If there is a better way to cite it, perhaps in the references instead, I'm perfectly fine with that. The de Stein d'Altenstein (1859) source I think should be kept because it is a principle secondary source for John the Fearless's bastard children, on which much of the modern sources are based. Victar (talk) 18:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "The de Stein d'Altenstein (1859) source I think should be kept because it is a principle secondary source for John the Fearless's bastard children, on which much of the modern sources are based."
 * Only according to you, yet you have not shown any evidence to prove this.
 * "The Medlands source I think should be kept because it's the only source that compiles the data together as shown in the Wikipedia article, and thus the most complete and comprehensive."
 * Yet you have admitted that Medlands is an unreliable source("I've never not excepted that.") and "because it's the only source that compiles the data together as shown in the Wikipedia article, and thus the most complete and comprehensive", for a listing of three names? LMAO. Nothing comprehensive about that, considering Medlands gives no sources as to where they found the information! The sources present already do a better job of compiling the data together and are reliable sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Victar asked me to comment again. He asked me, I think, because I was (ages ago) in a long discussion about the use and citing of Medlands. I thought then, as can still be seen in the discussions, that PBS was too eager to eliminate citations of Medlands, sometimes putting us at risk of plagiarism. I believe that the general awareness of that risk has increased in the years between. Anyway, I don't think there's any real risk here.
 * In the latest diff, the few details for which Medlands was cited are also cited to what we call reliable sources, so I think it is logical now to remove that citation to Medlands.
 * Victar's point about de Stein d'Altenstein (1859) is interesting. If true, it would make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia to say, in a footnote, all of the more recent sources cite de Stein d'Altenstein. This is because de Stein d'Altenstein could after all be wrong in some detail or other, and we should help readers to pursue that if they want to. Andrew Dalby 09:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The inclusion of the bastard children of John the Fearless and Marguerite de Borsele was based on the Cawley's work at Medlands, so you could argue that not referencing him, as it is compiled here, is plagiarism, but on the other hand, Cawley's work is surely taken straight from de Stein d'Altenstein (1859). So at the very least, I think we should cite de Stein, the earliest source I could find, though there are earlier sources of his mistresses, such as de Laborde, Léon (1849). I'll also shoot Cawley an email to see if he recalls his source. Victar (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "The inclusion of the bastard children of John the Fearless and Marguerite de Borsele was based on the Cawley's work at Medlands"
 * So the other sources, you added, do not have this information?
 * "I'll also shoot Cawley an email to see if he recalls his source"
 * So now we have to take your word, and Cawley's, after you've made false statements?
 * Pity, neither one of you knows what canvassing means. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sending an email to Cawley would be no use to us here -- we can't cite emails -- unless his reply suggests to us a different, potentially reliable, published source previously unknown to us. If so, we might then find it and cite it. But it seems highly unlikely. Andrew Dalby 17:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And yet you have read nothing of my argument regardless of Medlands' standing as a source. This concerns citation overkill, which conveniently both of you have ignored. I started a discussion, which was summarily ignored until I removed the old and less reliable sources. Only then did Victar choose to involve himself in the discussion, which he brought nothing to support his revertion, except his own personal opinion. Despite the fact he told PBS that he understood Medlands is an unreliable source!
 * "Yes, that is one end of the argument, which PBS makes in his opening statement on the page linked above, but the various rebuttals to it on the page are also valid. Again, my argument is that there is no one definiative decision on the inclusion of Medlands sources, and thus should not be removed outright. I don't see why you continue to deny this." Victar
 * "I think that two points need to be raised. The first is Victar do you now accept that Cawley on his own does not meet the requirements of a Wikipedia reliable source? The second is that the section in Cawley used for a citation:carries next to no citations to reliable sources (ie Cawley is not saying "I got the information it from this source" but rather "trust me, I know I am correct")."PBS
 * "I've never not excepted that. What I objected to was Kansas Bear deleting the content without putting a warning first, then after I found new secondary sources, deleting the content once again regardless." Victar
 * So, yet again, this has to do with citation overkill. Victar himself added sources which appear to be more reliable than Medlands. Victar's argument is based on nothing but his own personal wants, nor has he brought any evidence to support his claims concerning Stein. Regardless of any response by Cawley, there are currently sufficient sources to support John's illegitimate children(hence the reason for this "discussion").
 * As for Canvassing
 * "He asked me, I think, because I was (ages ago) in a long discussion about the use and citing of Medlands. I thought then, as can still be seen in the discussions, that PBS was too eager to eliminate citations of Medlands.." Andrew Dalby
 * "Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement ).[2] Vote-banking involves recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint for a group, similar to a political party, in the expectation that notifying the group of any discussion related to that viewpoint will result in a numerical advantage, much as a form of prearranged vote stacking." --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised at this reaction to my comments, which have been made in good faith. I mentioned my earlier opinion (about the risk of plagiarism) "for full disclosure" as they say, but I went on to say that I don't think there is any such risk here. If anyone were stacking !votes, they'd notice that my opinion against citing Medlands here has already been stated.
 * In case what I said about citing de Stein d'Altenstein wasn't clear enough, I'll clarify. If it is demonstrably true that all later reliable sources depend on de Stein d'Altenstein, we could say so, This doesn't include Medlands, because Medlands is not in Wikipedia terms a reliable source. If it isn't demonstrably true, we can't say it, and to send emails to try to verify it either way would be original research and completely useless. Andrew Dalby 09:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, so what I'm still trying to do is figure out if the modern sources are demonstrably based on the work of de Stein d'Altenstein. Cawley may also have better sources, which I can ask him to cite on Medlands, for what that's worth. Victar (talk) 04:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I would say that Victar is not listening to what either Andrew Dalby or I am saying. Unless someone has a viable reason to add an outdated source(Stein) or an unreliable source(Medlands), there is no reason to continue this charade, which started on 3 October. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "they'd notice that my opinion against citing Medlands here has already been stated.[...]. Sending an email to Cawley would be no use to us here -- we can't cite emails -- unless his reply suggests to us a different, potentially reliable, published source previously unknown to us. If so, we might then find it and cite it. But it seems highly unlikely. This doesn't include Medlands, because Medlands is not in Wikipedia terms a reliable source..[...].and to send emails to try to verify it either way would be original research and completely useless." Andrew Dalby
 * "Cawley may also have better sources, which I can ask him to cite on Medlands, for what that's worth." Victar

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John the Fearless. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050204092947/http://www.insecula.com/oeuvre/O0007804.html to http://www.insecula.com/oeuvre/O0007804.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Dutch in intro? Why?
Just as the title says, John the Fearless seemed to have been firmly French by birth, ethnicity, and nationality, so why the Dutch in the introduction exactly? Aliy Dawut (talk) 06:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A high proportion of his subjects in the Duchy of Burgundy spoke Dutch. Johnbod (talk) 14:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I see… Aliy Dawut (talk) 22:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:John the Fearless