lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Unix architecture

message: Does Filesystem Hierarchy Standard belong here?
:yes, but: do UNIX-branded systems universally adhere to the FHS? If no, the reference needs to be carefully qualified. I'm much more familiar with Linux and the LSB than anything else, and I know the LSB includes the FHS. Tarheelcoxn Wed 14 Dec 18:38 UTC
:I just did some poking around The Open Group's website, and I can't find a mention of the FHS. How does the FHS relate to the SUS? Is the FHS an effort including only non-UNIX Unix-like architectures? Tarheelcoxn Wed 14 Dec 19:51 UTC
: No, it does not.  FHS is a feature of some UNIXes, not a fundamental component of the architecture of UNIX systems in general.  If you can do it a completely different way and still call it UNIX then it's not part of the architecture.  Georgewilliamherbert 03:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filesystem Hierarchy Standard 

message: Does anyone still think this article should be merged into Unix?
There's still a merge notice on that article.  Ideogram 02:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no merge notice on the article. I dont know if it should merge. -- Frap 09:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge issue 

message: A Unix architecture is an operating system architecture that embodies some certain operating system related virtues in the Unix philosophy, not all of the virtues in that philosophy. I would say, everything is a file is one of those virtues, while everything is an agglomerate of small components aren't necessarily included, since many Un*ces are somewhat monolitic. I would say the theory of the non-Unix GNU/Hurd would embody such a small components' pilosopy better. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 17:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The intro too vague
Talk:Shambhala Buddhism

message: I propose merging Shambhala Buddhism into Shambhala Training. By everything I can find, not even Shambhala International seems to actively use the phrase “Shambhala Buddhism”, instead preferring to use terms like “Shambhala Training”, “Shambhala Path”, “Shambhala Vision”, etc. Even Googling “Shambhala Buddhism”, you see not too many outside references mention a “Shambhala Buddhism” specifically. So being that the latter article seems to be under the preferred terminology, I believe it would be better for the articles to be merged.2600:1702:35F0:A1D0:0:0:0:663 (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The concepts seem almost identical--Shambala Buddism is a newly established method of training.  DGG ( talk ) 23:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge direction is wrong. If there is a merge, which I am not sure I agree with, the Shambhala Training should be merge into Shambhala Buddhism, not the other way around; the Training is obviously subsidiary and only part of the broader tradition, the tradition was not formed from the training. Shambhala Buddhism also teaches the traditional approach - the training program is something optional and was clearly stated by Trungpa to be different and separate from the received traditions of the lineage, which were not themselves eliminated. Skyerise (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal
Talk:Yevhen Marchuk

message: Somebody please check my grammar and style. Thank you, Ukrained 14:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I can't see any mentions of Marchuk's being the chief of SBU. Why is that?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.133.28.45 (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  SBU?
Talk:Joseph Shabalala

message: "His brother, Ben Shabalala, who was part of South Africa's most famous Acappella ensemble for many years, was shot to death in Durban, South Africa on June 16, 2004. Lady Black Mambazo fuses Zulu and gospel music. The group won a Grammy award for best album in 1986." -- IMDb: Joseph Shabalala
:-- Crnk Mnky 15:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Trivia" from IMDb Entry 
Talk:Borough of Broxbourne

message: Think we should split this - one article for borough, one article for the town.  Thoughts? Morwen - Talk 15:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the existing article to Broxbourne (borough) and created Broxbourne for the town article. I've been through the inward links and should have redirected them correctly. MRSC 21:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Split?
Talk:A Night in Heaven

message: Does anyone have the DVD with this commentary on it? Mine doesn't have a commentary. The statement should really be attributed to an individual and should also be explained in light of Atkins' other nude scenes in the film outside of a club setting. Otto4711 (talk) 19:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nudity
Talk:Elena Kagan

message: The addition of the bolded text to the lead, "In 2009, Kagan became the first female solicitor general of the United States, despite the fact that she had never previous argued a case before any court." appears to put undue emphasis on this aspect and suggest she was unqualified (when her qualifications at the time was being a Harvard Law School professor). If this is to be included in the lead, it should at the very least drop the argumentative "despite the fact" and change it to "At the time", but I still think this is undue for the lead and misleadingly suggests incompetence to the readers. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: God forbid anyone suggest incompetence regarding a liberal figure.  Wikipedia at it again. 166.181.86.9 (talk) 08:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emphasizing that she had never argued a case before a court 

message: given the current state of the Supreme Court (July 2022) and the recent rulings affecting abortion I am adding :Category:Abortion. I believe adding this category will be uncontroversial.
-- Charlesreid1 (talk) 08:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Undone. Please see Talk:Ketanji_Brown_Jackson#Adding_Category_Abortion for centralized discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding Category Abortion

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges § RfC on the political party field in the infobox of SCOTUS judges.  Endwise (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion at [[:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges#RfC on the political party field in the infobox of SCOTUS judges|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges §&nbsp;RfC on the political party field in the infobox of SCOTUS judges]]

message: I think it's interesting to note that 26 states provided two senators who approved Kagan's nomination, while 13 states provided no senators.  Are the Supreme Court nominations usually this polarized?  73.55.138.35 (talk) 08:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a more general polarization, in that fewer states elect two Senators of different parties, a phenomenon that used to be more prevalent in the Solid South. For example, Susan Collins of Maine is the only currently-serving Republican Senator from the six New England states (who also send two Independents who caucus with the Democrats). On the other hand, there are no Democratic Senators from the formerly Solid Democratic Deep South. —— Shakescene (talk) 09:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Polarizes America?
Talk:Sofia University (California)

message: This page simply repeats the text from their website. There is no outside or objective information, nothing that's not already on their website. 
The previous consideration of the deletion of this page noted that a Google search on the phrase "Sofia University" had 65,000 hits. I suspect that most of those are searching for Sofia University in Sofia, Bulgaria. Social Norm (talk) 23:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding 4 secondary references, including New York Times and SF Chronicle.--Hawol (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Almost all the material on this page is quoted verbatim from their website 

message: The article now includes 7 refs. Secondary references include New York Times, SF Chronicle and The Arts in Psychotherapy. The other references are, in my understanding, primary. They are probably authored 
by the University, but are published by an external online news distributor (PRWeb). I'm removing the refimprove-tag.--Hawol (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refimprove-tag

message: I'm well aware that the University itself, as well as a few other significant sources, state that the institution was founded in 1975. This is probably true. However, two other sources, which I consider to be strong sources, say 1976. One of them is even the Textbook of Transpersonal Psychology and Psychiatry (Chinen, 1996). However, the latest standard introduction to Transpersonal Psychology, The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Transpersonal Psychology, says 1975, so I guess that settles the matter....for now.--Hawol (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Institution founded - 1975 or 1976?

message: Template message (as of January 2019) states that "article contains content that is written like an advertisement", but it does not identify which passages that are problematic. If we are going to adress this issue, in an editorial fashion, then we need to identify which passages that are problematic and, therefore, need to be re-written. Input is welcomed.--Hawol (talk) 09:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Wondering your connection with the institution? Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no connection with the institution. I live in Scandinavia.--Hawol (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promotional language?
Talk:Schöneberg

message: I removed Schöneberg from this category because it is a large area of Berlin, but only one small area of it (between Nollendorfplatz and Fuggerstraße would fall into this category. Also, as a Christian I dislike such references. Ianb 15:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category "Gay Village" 
Talk:Gamma-ray astronomy

message: Someone willing to update this article or the one for gamma rays  may find this bulletin interesting:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-12/nyu-pfe120905.php
Brian Pearson
:Only 3.5 TeV. Not very high by today's standards. Zyxwv99 (talk) 02:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Bulletin

message: Note that it is standard to hyphenate the adjective, but not the noun.  Thus, "gamma-ray astronomy", but "high-energy gamma rays".  (Similarly for X rays and cosmic rays, of course.) Wwheaton (talk) 08:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The hyphen:  gamma-ray vs gamma ray 

message: Could do with a brief summary or links to sensor technology/design. Rod57 (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: and capability ? eg. energy/frequency discrimination, maximum photon counting rate ? - Rod57 (talk) 09:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gamma-ray sensor technology 

message: Could mention use of intensity interferometry with gamma-ray telescopes : Gamma-ray Scientists "Dust Off" Intensity Interferometry, Upgrade Technology with Digital Electronics, Larger Telescopes, and Improved Sensitivity ? - Rod57 (talk) 14:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intensity interferometry
Talk:TEFC motor

message: If this is a real abbrevation, then it should be moved to TEFC. Scoo 15:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. -- Daverocks (talk) 09:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

message: TEFC is with the fan driven by the motor shaft itself (?). Fan speed depends on motor speed, so cooling is not as good at lower speeds, when used with a VFD
As opposed to TEBC which has a separately driven blower. Fan speed independent of motor speed, so cooling constant regardless of motor speed
Feldercarb (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compare and Contrast (and clarify?)
Talk:Lars Ramkilde Knudsen

message: Is there a reference for Knudsen publishing results against MISTY, as the recent addition asserts? I couldn't find any from a quick Google. — Matt Crypto 16:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I just unlinked RMAC, the "Rocky Mountain Athletic Conference" surely isn't a cryptographic designs analysed by Knudsen. I guess what was ment is Secure Channel Protocol#R-MAC generation, but I'm not sure.--ospalh (talk) 08:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  RMAC? 
Talk:Mbabaram language

message: Ethnologue says there were 2 speakers left in 1981. The article says the last native speaker died in 1972. Who's right? And if the former, are they still alive today? --Ptcamn 16:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the account in the article is the correct one.  I think what's going on is that in 1981, Ethnologue consulted the literature to find out how many speakers there were, and at that time all the available literature was from before 1972.  And since then, Ethnologue has not update its entry on Mbabaram.  I'll poke around a little bit to be sure.  I wonder if it would be inappropriate to ask Dixon; that might be a bit too much like Wikipedia doing original research.  Thanks for adding the language box, Ptcamn! ACW 21:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Mbabaram extinct? 

message: Is it Arthur or Albert? Vanishing Voices: The Extinction of the World's Languages gives it as Arthur, and googling <"Arthur Bennett" Mbabaram> gets about 300 hits. But a 1966 journal article by Dixon gives his name as Albert, as does his book Memoirs of a Field Worker, at least as quoted by languagehat. <"Albert Bennett" Mbabaram> gets only 4 hits. --Ptcamn 05:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mr. Bennett's first name
Talk:Ukrainian Independent Information Agency

message: The following text looks POVed and promo-like for me:
:A partial list of clients includes:
**Reuters
**Associated Press
**ITAR-TASS
**BBC
**Voice of America
**Coca Cola
**McDonald's
**Philip Morris
**Minolta
**Fakty i Kommentarii
**Den
As you may guess, such influential media and businesses subscribe at least ten newslines.  Going to remove the text if nobody opposes.
I also changed the main information source passage. Establishing such a fact is a question of content analysis. So please cite those if you want to revert my changes. Ukrained 16:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Is this just the successor of RATAU? 118.90.17.167 (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  RATAU
Talk:Balearic Anticolonialist Group

message: This article was nominated for deletion on 8 December 2005.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. 
An archived record of this discussion can be found here.
|} fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Upper motor neuron

message: In the text I have, Neuroanatomy Text and Atlas, by John H. Martin, the glossary defines "motor neuron" (without either adjective "upper" or "lower") as a neuron that synapses outside the CNS either on muscle or on an autonomic ganglion.  Thus "upper motor neurons" is a non-literal phrase, i.e. they're not motor neurons.
Btw, "motor neuron" and "motoneuron" are both acceptable, and mean exactly the same thing, afaik.  But the Wikipedia article is at "motoneuron".
dsws 16:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: In

message: hi, when one types in 'UMN' it redirects to university of minnesota. if someone could put in a direct link for 'UMN' or a disambiguity page that'd be great. I don't know how. blahblax (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done: UMN --Arcadian (talk) 01:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: UMN

message: The text states.."the final common pathway, that is, any motor neurons that are not directly responsible for stimulating the target muscle."
This seems quite wrong! To quote Sherrington, the originator of the term " The α-motoneuron is the final common pathway on which all efferent impulses from the CNS converge". See also the Wikipedia Neural_ensemble page.  The α-motoneuron is the motoneuron which directly innervates a muscle. This seems contrary to above quote. Should we change the underlined text to "the final common pathway, that is, the alpha motoneurons which directly innervate the target muscles
Also, http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=33871 defines an upper motoneuron as originating only in the cerebral cortex. I'm not expert enough to know if this is really the case. Here is another page which discusses all components of the motor pathway - http://www.csuchico.edu/~pmccaffrey/syllabi/CMSD%20320/362unit10.html. Another one http://pathology.mc.duke.edu/neuropath/nawr/motor-systems.html - which states "The upper motor neurons reside in the precentral gyrus of the frontal lobe also called the "motor strip". That is the cerebral cortex only.
The last link also had some interesting, possibly relevant information..."These upper motor neurons are arranged in a stereotypical fashion. Neurons which control movements of the face and mouth are located near the Sylvian or lateral fissue and neurons which control the muscles of the thighs and legs are located near the medial longitudinal fissure and within the central sulcus.
Many textbooks illustrate this phenomenon graphically using a distorted human figure called Homunculus. The homunculus has very large face and mouth because there are many upper motor which innervate these parts of the body."
This link shows the humunculus - http://www.psywww.com/intropsych/ch02_human_nervous_system/homunculus.html. I'm not sure if there is a copyright-free version. It was originally published in 1950 (Penfield & Rasmussen. The Cerebral Cortex of Man. Macmillan, New York, 1950). The copyright was renewed by Rasmussen in 1978, but Macmillan gives permission to use the image in some instances.QuietJohn (talk) 06:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Final common pathway definition seems wrong
Talk:St. Antony's Church, Pazhuvil

message: This article is for a church that is probably notable, so it should not be deleted. However, it needs to be expanded and tidied up. It needs to be flagged - there may be a better template than wikify to use, but I have repeated tried to add this and had it deleted by an IP that appears to be the page's creator. I have asked on the IP talk page and in my edit summary here for them to desist. What is best to do with this article? --Whouk (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikify 

message: I've fixed the typos, formatted, and added the little I could locate on the Internet. Durova 20:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC
Talk:On the Consolation of Philosophy

message: Not the most pressing thing in the world, but  actually applies here: the English title is invariably The Consolation of Philosophy and the title of the article should reflect that. — LlywelynII 16:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to have been done. JKeck (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to [[The Consolation of Philosophy]]

message: Jsusky (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification and citation for "four hundred latin manuscripts".  

message: I came here looking for a list of English translations of the work. There seems to be the start of one in the Sources section, but then I look below and I notice further translations mentioned. Could someone put together an exhaustive list? With links, where available online? JKeck (talk) 14:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of English Translations
Talk:Interreligious relations

message: Like some of my other articles, this is meant to link up various otherwise disconnected articles. Jackiespeel 16:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

message: I will add a little paragraph on relations and cultures. --Shell 03:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually mistook this topic for another and I am removing my addition. --Shell 03:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion 

message: Might this be better categorized in Religious faiths, traditions and movements?User:Deleted_user_jj1 21:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category 

message: Is there any reason why this should not be redirected to interfaith, which means the same thing? DJ Clayworth 18:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect
Talk:Realmz

message: Apparently Realmz just got its own Wiki a few days ago.  There is not really any info there yet, but I thought I'd mention it here. In the future it may become a good resource if people contribute. realmz wiki --Naha|(talk) 22:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Realmz Wiki 

message: Does anybody have any updates for the development of Realmz? I have browsed but couldn't fin anything since early 2006. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.242.25.74 (talk) 01:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Realmz X 

message: With the demolition of Yahoo Groups, it'd now appear that retrieving the registration is now impossible. Or am I missing something? 2601:540:8200:1895:1F11:1CEA:17AE:94CE (talk) 08:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there was a link for the Windows version but now I've contributed(hope it was helpful!) a citation regarding both Mac and Win versions. Maskingself (talk) 10:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Registration now missing?
Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/BB69

message: Following is the complete text of Connor v. U.S., 303 F. Supp. 1187 (S.D.Tex. 1969) - this text, like all federal court cases, is in the public domain, and is posted here to assist in the discussion on the RfC page. Note that the numbers in brackets and followed by * or ** indicate the page numbers for the various case reporters. bd2412 T 16:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Talk:JK and Joel

message: Dodgy article
: Dodgy comment - you're supposed to sign them --Casper Gutman 13:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

message: Don't merge. JK and Joel page should be for their show where as their individual pages should be about thereselves. T3rotm 23:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: This article seems to be inundated with link after link, making it very difficult to read.  Some are [were, as I've removed it] pointless eg Manchester.  Do we really need a link to Manchester?  Jubilee♫clipman 17:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Difficult to read
Talk:Christian Union

message: Christian Union is now a disambiguation page. It was redirecting to ChristianUnion which I thought was incorrect given that the student group is what it is often referring to. Given that it refers to at least 3 different things (if you include the denomination) I thought that a disambiguation was more appropriate than a redirect. There is also the question of where the political party's article should go. However that question appears to be closed. See Talk:ChristianUnion Matt73 12:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation