lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Occupational Safety and Health Act (United States)

message: needs citations to federal statutes and regulations  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.165.191 (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *No it doesn't. - Tim1965 (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Cites

message: The page currently states that "Many labor leaders, including the leadership of the AFL-CIO, did not fight for the legislation, claiming workers had little interest in the bill" offering a book called _Bitter Wages_ as a reference (with no page numbers as part of the citation). I don't have access to the text of that book at the moment, but I do have access to a web publication from the US Department of Labor on the history of the bill the related legislation.
The Job Safety Law of 1970: Its Passage Was Perilous Regarding the "Johnson Bill", it says Organized labor supported the bill. George Meany, AFL-CIO president, headed a long list of union witnesses at the congressional hearings. I am inclined to give weight to this reference over the citation in place, although I'm tempted to spend a couple of bucks on a used paperback copy of _Bitter Wages_ to attempt either verification or complete refutation.DoctorCaligari (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 01:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support by labor unions of the "Johnson Bill" 

message: Purpose of Occupational Health & Safety Act  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.113.183.201 (talk) 15:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Business
Talk:Pepper Pad

message: We need to fill out this entry and get some good information here.  Perhaps we should break up the main Pepper Pad entry to have 2 separate entries for PP2 and PP3?  Also, I don't know if the gaming box floated in the entry is helpful or not...
Avhell 16:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

message: I have updated the page quickly with an image of the PP3, as well as "borrowing" (read: blatantly copied) hardware information from chuma.org.
Modified TOC to get it out of the way a bit, and have started organizing sub-sections
Avhell 16:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: There is a detail regarding the Pepper Pad 3 having an SD/MMC card slot,  which is incorrect.  The Pepper Pad 2 does have this slot.  It was removed on the 3rd version of Pepper Pad, maybe because it now has 2 USB 2.0 ports, and USB card readers are so cheap and common now?
The device does appear to have far more capability than initially realised by many users (and even its creators),  as it is actually capable of running a full 32bit installation of the Windows XP operating system (subject to installation and sourcing of the correct OS drivers), as well as many other LINUX distributions than were available at the time of its manufacture. 
(please excuse any errors in my insertion here, as this is my first updating)
FileSponge (talk) 02:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  SD slot and Windows XP 

message: When was this made/released? I just found the page by chance and was searching to see a year/date and there doesn't appear to be one. My guess is a few years ago by the look of the device, around 2003?   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.171.215 (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hard to tell. The manufacturer's/distributor's web page has gone down and so have the fan made forum pages for it. The main article was created in June 2006 and the fan made forums seem to have started in April 2006 (http://web.archive.org/web/20080224073827/http://pepperwiki.chuma.org/index.php/Main_Page). Also be aware that there were at least 3 generations - Pepper Pad, Pepper Pad 2, Pepper Pad 3 (Sept 2006) and maybe Pepper Pad 4. I know nothing more about this device.  Stepho  talk  22:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release Date 

message: The pepper pad 2 apparently used the Intel XScale 270 processor and the 2700G GPU. The hardware differences between the three models could be clarified.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinchies (talk • contribs) 12:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarify differences between PP1/2/3
Talk:Sadik Ahmad Turkistani

message: Replaced transcluded image with inline image -  tag as per dispute on Template talk:Combatant Status Review Tribunal trailer image and caption. Geo Swan 14:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replaced transcluded image with inline image - {{tl|npov}} tag as per dispute on [[Template talk:Combatant Status Review Tribunal trailer image and caption]] 
Talk:Sadeq Muhammad Sa'id Ismail

message: Replaced transcluded image with inline image -  tag as per dispute on Template talk:Combatant Status Review Tribunal trailer image and caption.  Geo Swan 15:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replaced transcluded image with inline image - {{tl|npov}} tag as per dispute on [[Template talk:Combatant Status Review Tribunal trailer image and caption]] 

message: The page should be move to Sadeq Muhammad Said Ismail as per the sources. Including the NYT's and Andy Worthington source. Any objections? IQinn (talk) 02:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: move
Talk:Sadie T. M. Alexander

message: Would it not be better to have the chapter "marriage and children" before the chapter "education", therefore not splitting her personal life up with a chapter about her professional life.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbosr (talk • contribs) 13:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Why does the side box show income by race for USA? How is this relevant?
Perhaps the side box could feature material from her work "Negro Women in Our Economic Life"?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonycat (talk • contribs) 06:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graph/side box 

message: There was recently a suggested change to the first sentence of the lede, of which I was the original author (from "first Black ..." to "first African-American ..."), and then that change was reverted (not by me). To the extent it matters, I note that in her time the respectful term Mossell Alexander herself (and others) used was "Negro." I would love to hear any thoughts that interested editors may have on this stylistic question, either in general or in this particular context. PDGPA (talk) 23:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black or African-American
Talk:Fair use (U.S. trademark law)

message: While this article was written and is titled to refer to the US doctrine, does anyone know if there are comparable doctrines internationally which could support a Fair use (trademark law) article? --Lquilter 16:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put  on the article once, but someone took it off due to "U.S." in the article title. So I went and requested what you mentioned. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 16:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  international TM fair use doctrines? 

message: I feel that this page ought to be marked as a stub, as it is both short and a little disorganized. -guest, Nov. 21  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.9.1 (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Short, yes, but more than a stub. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub 

message: The First Amendment extends into fair use along with trademark use for noncommercial purposes and use for news reporting"Using the Trademarks of Others."  Digital Media Law Project.  30 April 2008.  <http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/using-trademarks-others>. 6 December 2015..Northmop (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Fair Uses
Talk:Oceans Act of 2000

message: I made several additions to the article because it was lacking in information. I added the (The Commission, Other Roles, Meetings, Committees, Timeline, Ammendments, Funding, Representational Members, Biennial Report) sections and four new sources. Aendicot (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Additions to Article

message: It would be nicer if the article does not have too many bullet lists. Shyamal (talk) 11:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Bullet lists
Talk:Bailiff (Channel Islands)

message: Now that the Bailiff of Guernsey article has been created I think it would be better if this article was turned into Bailiff of Jersey.
I can see little point in having an article explaining the difference between the two Bailiff's and 80% of this article is about the history and duties of the Bailiff of Jersey. There are few instances when anyone refers to the two Bailiffs jointly, and I am not aware they act together, no joint meetings or representations or letters sent by them acting together.....   Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 10:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Change article

message: I propose merging this page into multiple others: Bailiff of Jersey, Bailiff of Guernsey and Bailiff. The content covered in this article could easily be covered more specifically to each island in the two above articles, while the content in this article discusses two separate positions which have been on two similar, but distinct, evolutionary paths, since the 1270s. Commonalities between them could be discussed in Bailiff under a new level-1 heading "Channel Islands".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jèrriais janne (talk • contribs) 15:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Closing, given the uncontested objection with no support for the proposal or alternative, with stale discussion. Klbrain (talk) 15:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger
Talk:SAFA programme

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/domains/air-operations/ramp-inspection-programmes-safa-saca. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me!  20:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Talk:Of counsel

message: This has been made rather US centric I think.  Should this still be in the UK law section?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.216.70 (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it an American term? American only perhaps. If it is, the article should say so. If it isn't, the article should give examples of usage elsewhere.  Wimstead 01:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Over the last years, this title has become quite common here in Germany as well, due to the expansion of Anglo-American law firms and tax advisory/CPA firms. In fact, I came here to find an elaborate definition of this term. However, I also find the article too US centric.--82.135.32.38 (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In The Netherlands the designation is used as well. Then it usually refers to a senior (former) attorney at a law firm in advisory role, for instance lawyers who have become university professor.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbakels (talk • contribs) 12:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

message: I think this should be low, rather than mid, importance. Superm401 - Talk 15:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Low importance?

message: US Supreme Court briefs appear to use the term somewhat differently, with the brief submitted by one lawyer or firm, listed as "Counsel of Record for Such-and-such Company," and then additional lawyers or firms may be listed as "Of Counsel to Such-and-such Company." Is there a convenience sourcing/defininition for this usage? jhawkinson (talk) 12:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  SCOTUS usage 

message: Could someone explain the words "of counsel"? I would expect "off counsel" - but I am not a native English speaker. Rbakels (talk) 12:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I also do not understand in which sense the word "of" is used in "of counsel". "Of", normally means "something that belongs to something else". I am also not native English speaker, and would be grateful to understand. AristoTel (talk) 11:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language 

message: I don't have a reference but my understanding is that another situation in which a lawyer may be "of counsel" is when he or she practices in an area not included in the firm's practice but for which it has some use. A common example would be a corporate firm that does not handle criminal cases. It may be useful to such a firm to have a close relationship with a criminal defense lawyer to handle criminal matters for clients or their families.Bill (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Another situation
Talk:Degree of polymerization

message: Merge.  Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  There is no room to expand this article beyond a definition.  Irene Ringworm 16:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed.  There's no way to work this into the polymerization article without it being buried and merging with molecular weight poses the same problem.  Suggestions for expansion?  Irene Ringworm 23:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fortunately it hasn't been merged. Zitterbewegung Talk 18:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge suggestion

message: Actually the sort of references I'm looking for are vague statements like "For most industrial purposes, lengths in the thousands or tens of thousands are desired."  The definition of DP certainly doesn't need a citation as per wiki guidelines but vague references or potentially controversial statements need to be supported with references or deleted.  I'll use the fact template in the future to be more clear.  Irene Ringworm 23:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References
Talk:Zelig Pliskin

message: 1.  I inserted "Jewish" into the first sentence.  There are people to whom this might not be obvious.
2.  It would be good if someone who knows what school, in the SUNY system, Rabbi Pliskin attended, says which one it was.
3.  Similarly, it would be nice if the article named the title and author of R. Zelig Pliskin's father's biography of the Chofetz Chaim.
4. I inserted a comma into the sentence "The result was his first book Guard Your Tongue."
GcT (talk) 06:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  As to item 3 above — done. Der Chofetz Chayim: Zine Leben un Shafen by Rabbi Shmuel Pliskin. Objectivesea (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some relatively minor points
Talk:Zeid bin Ra'ad

message: A longtime homosexual? I tried to change this, but it does not appear on the edit page.2602:306:3648:1B70:AD8E:3439:528D:CA22 (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longtime homosexual 

message: In the title "al-Hussein" is missing from his name. In the opening sentence it is there, but "Zeid" is repeated, whereas in the Arabic spelling زيد ابن رعد حسین it only occurs once (but there the "al-" is missing). And in the information box on the right it reads "Zeid bin Ra'ad al-Hussein". Surely only one of these spellings can be right - so which one?213.127.210.95 (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name?
Talk:Offence (law)

message: User:165.219.245.62 changed the spellings in the article from offence to offense (diff). I have reverted it, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National Varieties of English, guideline #3. Joshua Issac (talk) 18:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: Agree and have prepared the lede there. Littledogboy (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge
Talk:SaferNet

message: I just tried to copyedit this page but I couldn't really understand the article well enough to rewrite it.  If somebody could rewrite the page then I would be happy to help edit the grammar!
Noosentaal (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requires more than a copyedit 

message: Funandtry at 23:52, 1 August 2014 categorized as a scam. Why, if the article talks about a serious non-governmental organization? Pilgerowski (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why SaferNet is a scam?
Talk:False imprisonment

message: I see that some changes have been made to the article that are supported by primary resources and thus become problematic under sourcing standards (see WP:RS and WP:RSLAW) as well as raising issues of original research. Please recall, it doesn't matter whether you're right, additions to an article should be properly supported by reliable secondary sources. Thank you. Arllaw (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please Use Reliable Secondary Sources
Talk:Balanced Budget Act of 1997

message: This is for class, and the Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy. This article doesn't seem to have been worked on at all. It needs to be expanded. What President approved this? Why was is proposed? Did it do any good? Also, the opening paragraph is written in "legalese", and it is very hard to understand exactly what the act was about. Aliceembers (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, it could use some work. Jesanj (talk) 03:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: US Public Policy Review
Talk:Egyptian Constitution of 1923

message: The following sentence in the article has a few inaccuracies: "a new Egyptian Constitution was promulgated in April 1923 by a 30-member legislative committee that included representatives of political parties, as well as national movement leaders."
(1) The constitution was promulgated by the King and not by a Committee.
(2) There was indeed a 30-member committee that worked on preparing a draft constitution. I am not sure if it can be called "legislative committee" because it had no power to legislate as it did not promulgate the constitution (point (1) above). The Committee was called the Committee on the Constitution (translated from arabic لجنة الدستور)
(3)The Committee did not include representative of political parties as one of them the Liberal Constitutional Party, to which most of the 30-members committee adhered, was founded only at the end of November 1922, while the Committee was created on 30 April 1922. Also the committee did not include members of the Wafd, the leading political movement at the time, which refused to join. While the Committee included thinkers, men of the law, scientists, religious officials, moderate politicians, landowners, merchants and financiers, the drafting of the constituion was in fact a very controversial exercise.
I will edit the article to a more correct version and reference my text.SuperAnalyser (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Inaccuracies in the History Section
Talk:False pretenses

message: The discussion of theft by false pretenses under common law is entirely without reference to sources.  How do we know these claims are true?—Preceding unsigned comment added by DoktorMax (talk • contribs) 19:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  no sources 

message: The current page uses both spellings "false pretences" and "false pretenses". The reader could be confused as to which is correct. I believe that the British spelling and the American spelling follow the pattern of "defence/defense" but I have not added this as I have no citation. I assume that the passages which use the "c" are the ones which have been copied verbatim from the Encyclopedia Brittanica, which would obviously have used the British spelling.
206.248.174.247 13:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: James500 (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling clarification 
Talk:Dei delitti e delle pene

message: The article needs to cite secondary and tertiary sources to comply with Wikipedia:No original research. joye (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Reinstated the tags noting both the concerns in this section and the one above.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research
Talk:1923 in organized crime

message: If this is only U.S. related, is there something to indicate that? And is there an equivalent for other countries or parts of the world? Manytexts (talk) 05:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the original intention of these year articles about organized crime was that  they be about all "international organized crime". At present, these articles are biased towards North America and the Italian Mafia because existing articles are about what the most notable and well documented sources are about. If there is relevant information about organized crime elsewhere in the world, then by all means add it. You can also add the relevant country banner WikiProject too. WikiProject banners are inclusive, not exclusive. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 04:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for explaining Cameron. I'll consider doing that with these tips. Manytexts (talk) 05:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  only in the United States?
Talk:Sahrawi Association of Victims of Grave Human Rights Violations Committed by the Moroccan State

message: Why? The Independence Intifada and associated violence are on-going, so why keep on deleting this campaign? That is the whole point of the organization. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that is not ongoing. We have already have fruitless discussions about this so-called intifada: Having three people here and five people there 2 months later scanding slogans and raising the SADR flag on a house is anything but an intifada. --A Jalil 18:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right And that's also not what is happening; you can see that on their web site. You're avoiding the issue and making a cartoonish straw man in opposition. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletions 

message: This article is clearly a polisario-propaganda and has to be submited for deletion, is this association recongnized? should we convert wikipedia in a dictionnary of associations? --Yusuf ibn Tashfin (talk) 11:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: POV template added since the article presents the NGO's POV instead of the NGO itself. --Omar-toons (talk) 02:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: Sahrawi Association of Victims of Grave Human Rights Violations Committed by the Moroccan State is hardly concise. (95 characters) What can or should be done about the length?--Dthomsen8 (talk) 00:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's long, but it's what they call themselves. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title not concise?