lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Genocidal massacre

message: A man known as Leo Kuper? Isn't that his real name then? Just curious. -- Necrothesp 12:24, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Leo Kuper

message: I'm removing this because it's not in the time frame of the UN. Rich Farmbrough 16:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means remove the Armenian incident, which should not be on the Genocidal massacre page.  I moved the text to Warrigal Creek and did some research on the subject.  For reaons I forget I didn't have time to re-write the apalling paragraph that was there, but I did put some references at the foot of the article, to help anyone who feels like creating a proper well sourced article. Rich   Farmbrough 16:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If Warrigal Creek was moved, why is it back?  I'd never heard of the term "genocidal massacre" before, but if it refers to violations of the UN Convention then this scenario doesn't apply...  Nicolasdz 09:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Warrigal Creek]] 

message: I have rewritten the article using a reliable source. It needs to be expanded using other reliable sources. --PBS (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: An orphan tag was added to this article by Khazar2 at 07:12, 19 April 2012‎ I moved it here because it is an editor to editor message and adds no information for a reader to the article about Genocidal massacres. -- PBS (talk) 07:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 20+ articles link to here now, was this that hard to de-orphan? The Find link tool found even more linkable articles, but I think I got enough of them. My takeaway, as a reader, is that this topic is well-covered (probably over covered) by Wikipedia. I sense some redundancy. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphan 

message: Hi everyone, we'd be grateful for your thoughts at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Definitions of Pogrom. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD at [[Definitions of Pogrom]] 

message: I have removed a paragraph added by an IP address (Revision as of 04:20, 16 February 2018) citing Trafzer and Hyer and stating "Trafzer and Hyer note numerous genocidal massacres ..." The cited book is: 
*
The text of this book can be viewed at Google Books. A search of "genocidal" turns up one page and the word "massacre" on five others. However the authors do not mention the phrase "genocidal massacre", so the text it was used to support was a WP:SYN. -- PBS (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trafzer and Hyer
Talk:McMansion

message: I  the picture with one I took two summers ago of a museum exhibit that dealt with McMansions. I haven't done much other than shrink it down, so perhaps the photo could use some cleaning up. Still, it seems a better  than the random picture of a McMansion, seeing as we already have such a picture elsewhere in the article. --Our Bold Hero 9 July 2005 07:04 (UTC)
:Great addition. Stbalbach 9 July 2005 17:01 (UTC)
I'm not sure why some suburban hell pictures were given as McMansions in Leesburg, VA.  Not defending the town or those homes, but those aren't McMansions.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.36.25.143 (talk) 07:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  pictures 

message: Personally, I'm not a fan of McMansions at all.  That said, this article strikes me as very POV.  Yes, McMansion is (usually) a pejorative term.  And no, I'm not trying to defend them.  But the article seems like every sentence is taking a dig at McMansions, instead of explaining what they are.  Moreover, even if a McMansion uses the finest quality building materials, it's still a McMansion.  It's not so much about quality as it is about size and architectural design, coupled with (oftentimes) very large lots with huge front and/or backyards surrounding the house itself.  This article spends too much time highlighting the "cheapness" of the McMansion, trying too hard to drill home the point that McMansions are bad.  Shouldn't it be a bit more neutral?  73.194.85.220 (talk) 11:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: Hay  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.190.102 (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  /* Wave 16 (Secrets of the Forbidden Spitjitzu) */
Talk:Thunderball (novel)

message: I would like to state on the record that the removal of Thunderball from Featured Article status would not have occurred if the Wikipedia community had not insisted upon the article being split up. Thanks guys. 23skidoo 13:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Thunderball from Featured Article status 

message: Most of the Controversy section is uncited, and needs restructuring. Alientraveller 17:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These same problems still exist. This is a novel - think of including sections such as: "Themes", "Writing style", "Reception", etc. You might look at the some of the novels that have become FAs for guidance such as Uncle Tom's Cabin, The Lord of the Rings, and The Well of Loneliness. Also, there is quite a bit of excellent literary criticism on Fleming and film criticism on the Bond films. You need to do some more research - that will provide you with the sources for the article and help you flesh out the discussion of the novel. Awadewit | talk 04:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA fail 

message: Since the review lasted quite awhile, I figured I might as well mention it here, the articles status was unchanged. Jayron seems to of offered some helpful suggestions though, at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 29. Homestarmy 03:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA/R result 

message: What happened to the film rights when McClory died?  Emperor001 (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rights
Talk:The Passover Plot

message: Schonfield teases readers with a single injection of controversy as if a "Jesus" ever existed. 
Bible stories are so absurd and numerous to merit no respect.  
Taken at face value, what good does a single survivor of an execution bestow upon believers? 
Schonfield suggests that the story is fully true except for the impossibility of surviving  the crucifixion. 
Egyptian and modern day embalming is an implicit if not purchased preparation for bodily resurrection. 
Christian mythology generally implies a "soul" or "essence" resurrection immediately after bodily death.  
All is pure vanity.  
Immortality has often been an element of mythology, Achilles for example was immune from any injury save for minor trauma to his heel.  
Chasing down all the beliefs in this crap is like chasing down every possible belief in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy.  Buried in childhood memory or with some like me who reacted with appropriate disdain that such lies are insulting to children, loyalties to such mythology more often is evident in anger directed towards non-compliant non-believers.
Schonfield and his footnotes may be of some value in researching actual evidentiary sources for a particular Roman execution, but it must be noted for the birth of this alleged Jeebus to be "true," the calendar is 4 years off as Herod died in 4 B.C.E. in a dating system that was fabricated over 600 years after the alleged year one.
Josephus alleged account was altered and must be considered a forgery.
The Shroud of Turin is a pathetic 700 year old painting.
And as far as the escape of a baby Jeebus from the order for all 2 year old infants to be killed, there is no record of either such a genocide or the British seaport that claims to be the exile home.
---- my name is Larry Carter Center, AtheistVet — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtheistVet (talk • contribs) 08:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe Thomas Didymus, the twin.
---- Mary Magdalene and the alleged Miriam mother of Jeebus are also regaled in various statements of non-recognition of a revived dead body.  Wounds in the palms and the top of two feet are both inconsistent with Roman execution method and massive tearing and gangrene inevitable with 38 hour festering, let alone 40 days of non-miraculous medicine available in Palestine. 
Wounds in the wrists would have destroyed most function so that a "last supper" could not have included holding a goblet or tearing pita bread.  Religionists and believers are not prone to examination of any story detail.
If governments had not used religion as a military and political device, this idiotic fable would have passed into oblivion.   ---- Larry Carter Center, AtheistVet — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtheistVet (talk • contribs) 08:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  resurrection 

message: "being imminently versed in the details of what that role entailed."
should be 
"being eminently versed in the details of what that role entailed."
210.50.8.12 03:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo correction?
Talk:Angle of repose

message: Angle of repose (α) is not the angle of friction (φ).
The former is as described the angle at which granular particles come to rest in a pile.
The latter is a function of normal and shear stress.
There is a relationship between the two: α = 45 deg + φ/2.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistersumner (talk • contribs) 18:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  angle of repose/angle of friction 

message: This seems to be relevant to the Concrete slump test, although concrete is not a single granular material. Should there be a reference? Campingcar (talk) 09:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference concrete slump test 

message: I was under the impression that there was a mystery relating to the angle of repose. In particular, that if you take a pile in a container and remove the walls, you get one angle; if you pour a pile from the ground up with no walls you get the same angle. At its face, that's not surprising, but I remember hearing that the density distribution is different in these cases, suggesting some different internal structure, even though the angle of repose is the same. Is this just some silly pop-"science" thing or is this an actual unsolved problem? —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 02:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mystery? 

message: The spanish version of Angle of repose is Ángulo de reposo. I'm new at this so I don't know how to change it but I hope someone can change it. The link now is connecting Angle of repose (in english) to the friction angle (in spanish, ángulo de rozamiento interno). Thanks!
Cosiampirulo (talk) 21:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish Version
Talk:Dartmouth College Delta Beta

message: From VfD:
Guess what?  It's just the chapter of Sigma Nu.  This time, it's by a user with an account. Geogre 13:15, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

message: This article fit in better at Dartmouth College Greek organizations. --Rossumcapek 04:27, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging thoughts
Talk:Haltija

message: Haltija refers to an owner, possesor, etc. Haltia instead refers to the mythical creature. The word "Haltia" can also refer to a witch or a wizard.
There is a Finnish internet meme circling around about the traffic sign "Oleskelu vain haltian luvalla" - which can be translated as "Staying only with a permit from an elf", where the word "haltia" is written in broken Finnish. link here -> https://www.riemurasia.net/kuva/Kyltti/48055 .. This is how I have been taught in high school. In Finnish grammar "Haltija" (suffix -ja/-jä) is the nominative form of the word "Hallita". It is the 12. class nominative form in Finnish (out of 51 forms).
reference: http://kaino.kotus.fi/sanat/nykysuomi/taivutustyypit.php, https://fi.wiktionary.org/wiki/Liite:Suomen_sanojen_taivutustyypit
The word "Haltia" has no other meaning than the mythical creature. Tolkien lore does not make a difference here. I suggest the article should be corrected as "Haltia" instead of "Haltija". I personally think that the use of word "Haltija" is due to lack of education in grammar. edit: Written Finnish has changed a lot after it was crafted by Mikael Agricola. In the original (not refined) Finnish it might be possible to use both of the forms. In academic world the difference is clear.
- Matti  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14BA:1FF9:A500:B847:B1AA:8D1B:B8FB (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Finnish Folklorist's comments

message: I’m working on an article for väki.
It is called Draft:Väki.
It goes more in depth on the supernatural power aspect. It would be nice if I had some help on this. CycoMa (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article on Väki
Talk:Component Pascal

message: Component Pascal should belong to "Oberon Dialects" categories, not Pascal?
It only has the name in common with Pascal, and the rest comes from Oberon.
(and languages closer to Pascal, like Modula-2 are not added to the pascal category. Which isn't
bad, otherwise the Algol page would be come _huge_ :_))
*You're correct. I'll fix it. — danakil 17:54, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
I didn't see a fix, so I fixed it. Component Pascal is NOT Pascal. This
attempt to attach to the name Pascal is not helping either Oberon Microsystems, nor
is it doing much good for the language Pascal. Please stop.
I also note that this entire article CLEARLY breaks Wikipedia rules against
posting articles promoting companies or products ! This whole article
should not be here. I respect Wikipedia conventions. Do the creators of
this article ?
[Scott A. Moore]
I am a happy user of that language and I have initiated this article quite some time 
ago. Since there are two independent implementations (one by a company, the other by
an academic institution), I do not think it is a purely promotional article. I was surprised that there was "Vote for Deletion", but I also saw with some satisfaction in the archived discussion about the VfD that it was agreed upon that it should be kept.
[Bernhard Treutwein]
After posting the deletion vote, I was educated that such promotions are within Wikipedia's charter. Wikipedia talks about promotional articles, but the criteria (as was explained to me in letters) is that promotion is ok if information is imparted. I think that should be in the charter, but its fine. I have since noted that many of the language and other articles are promotional. So I am fine with that now.
I maintain that the name "Component Pascal" is a problem, this language clearly has nothing whatever to do with Pascal (the language Pascal), and was, in fact a deliberate attempt by the authors of it to get attention (unwarranted). In fact, I have been informated that this goes back to Wirth himself.
The duplicate naming only serves to confuse users.--Samiam95124 21:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

message: Maybe someone could rewrite that section in ordinary prose, with an example or two, and something about the semantics, and then just provide a link to the formal syntax definition? 83.252.164.90 13:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  EBNF?
Talk:Aspley, Queensland

message: Somehow I don't think the inclusion of a McDonald's is article-worthy. Anybody with knowledge (or access to knowledge) about Aspley willing to do a re-write? Livajo 13:59, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Yakovlev Yak-11

message: I took out a Korean battle story where US F-82s make a kill. I like the colorful story but it is more appropriate to book of battle tales than an article about the plane. Also, this article is too short to be able to absorb a story like that without it taking over the text. Binksternet (talk) 18:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And again, I just took out the story after a reversion. What would be appropriate here is to state how many Yak-11s were involved in the Korean conflict and how they fared vs other aircraft. Not an unsourced battle yarn about one particular dogfight. Binksternet (talk) 08:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Exceptionally historic combat encounters are relevant to aircraft articles, and are frequently cited (see F-82 and P-61). These encounters are not cited simply to serve as examples of "typical" combat encounters, but rather they are so significant that they form an essential part of the aircraft's history. A good example is the P-61's downing of the last enemy aircraft in WWII, or the B-32's dogfight that saw the last American causality of WWII. In this case a Yak-11 was the first aircraft shot down in the Korean War. This is made more unusual since the aircraft is essentially a trainer. There are no other recorded cases of American fighters engaging in a dogfight with a Yak-11 during the conflict, and the type was likely returned to training duty following this one incident. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle story 

message: To be honest, I don't see any reason to compare the Yak-11 with the T-6, as the development and manufacture op the T-6 precedes that of the Yak-11 with almost a decade (so it is quit logical the production of the T-6 is far higher, as it actually was produced during WWII!). But this kind of background is not given here. And why not compare it to the T-28, the T-34 or even the Fokker S-11, as those are more of the same era ? --Antheii (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yak-11 vs T-6 

message: Is a photo of an incredibly modified airframe really suitable for the main image of this piece? It's certainly not representative of the aircraft in general. 213.123.216.139 (talk) 09:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main image
Talk:Situation Room

message: I am confused. From the White House article I learn that the Presidential Emergency Operations Center lies under the East Wing while from this article I learn it is under the West Wing. Maybe they are really two different rooms but seen the functions described it sounds too me to be the same thing.
Could somebody clarify this please. Vanderesch 14:38, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct.  The PEOC is beneath the East Wing, and the Situation room is beneath the West Wing. Schuminweb 05:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. The Situation Room is sort of the president's switchboard and conference room. The staff monitors secure lines of communication with foreign and intelligence offices and sets up complicated overseas calls and teleconference calls. It is not a bomb shelter, however. The PEOC is where the president (and his family and immediate senior staff) would go if the White House were under attack. It has external communications, but you'd probably be talking to NORAD, not to Baghdad. --Tysto 19:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Room confusion 

message: According to  this 1997 article, staff duty officers in the sit room are relatively junior. Is this still the case, or has it changed due to 9/11 or the room's renovation?
--VAcharon 19:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rank of staff duty officers 

message: All the photos in this article are of the George W. Bush Presidency. Maybe there could be some more variety, such as the photo at right from the Reagan Presidency. It would give readers a more historical timeline of the room. Happyme22 17:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Somewhat pointless.  The White House staff photographers are constantly churning out a stream of pictures on Flickr.com.  Which one is the "best"?  The article already has a number of representative images that show the reader the appearance of the room. —QuicksilverT @ 17:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: When someone gets a chance: http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/3485563573/ --Padraic 18:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Somewhat pointless.  The White House staff photographers are constantly churning out a stream of pictures on Flickr.com.  Which one is the "best"?  The article already has a number of representative images that show the reader the appearance of the room. —QuicksilverT @ 17:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Obama photo 

message: ... and their use. Is it just about "honour" or is it more? Does it depend on what the room is being used for, etc, etc. 85.211.228.45 (talk) 08:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  And now we need to mention the legality of recording devices
Talk:The Tale of Igor's Campaign

message: Give plot  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2168:83F:823D:0:0:0:3 (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot? 

message: I made only linguistic fixes here. 
This authenticity section needs to be rearranged by the pro and against voices, disregarding the periods. 
Shall anyone attempt it? And the plot please, see above ;) Zezen (talk) 08:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Authenticity

message: I removed the links for references to Russia scholar Robert Mann. The links led to the Wikipedia article for the late violinist Robert Mann, a different Mann entirely. The Russianist whose work is cited appears to still be living in Florida working as a teacher. Random noter (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers for being on the ball! Just as an aside, the correct 'Robert Mann' you're referring to is a 'Professor of Slavic Languages and Literatures', not a 'Russianist'. He specialises in Eastern European Slavic studies, which isn't quite the same thing. Apologies for feeling compelled to be pedantic, but the use of Russian-ist/Russian history/Russian culture, per se, is often conflated to exclude the cultural/historical group of ethnicities emanating from the long-defunct Rus' from which they emanated. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

text: No worries- I was being too casually flippant. I appreciate his sphere of work, as far as I have seen it, is for an early enough period and broad enough in scope that it is not appropriately restricted to terms that more commonly cover Muscovite/Great Russian subjects only. Random noter (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for being kind enough to put up with my pedantry. I really should practice biting my tongue when I know the editor I'm communicating with was simply being casual, not controversial. Uff, I'm issuing myself a small trout slap for being obnoxious. Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robert Mann 

message: I reverted recent changes that represent the Tale as some non-authentic book created in the XVIII century. We need much more solid ground for such claims. Fore example, a comprehensive linguistic analysis performed by acad. Zaliznyak completely rules out any possibility of a forgery.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes