lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:J. Carter Brown

message: I'm tempted to amend the sentence as below, so I'll leave it alone and let someone else fix it. 
John Carter Brown III (October 8, 1934 – June 17, 2002), director of the U.S. National Gallery of Art from 1969 to 1992 and a leading figure in American intellectual life, was a notable figure. 
— MaxEnt 18:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence no verb 

message: This mark would have been surpassed by Mr. Brown's successor, Earl A. Powell III (q.v.) who had served 25 years by late 2017. Johannes der Taucher (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating needed on line about "longest serving director"
Talk:White Stag

message: I removed text about "GeoScouting program co-founded by Bela H. Banathy with Magyar Cserkészszövetség," as I could find no source for this program and it's relationship to "White Stag." -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 22:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GeoScouting?
Talk:Monroe Work

message: There should be a better way to cite the repeating Year Book as a journal. DutchTreat 00:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree but I decline to be the one to do it. -The Gnome (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: There is a great website up now (monroeworktoday.org) that has a lot of biographical information about Monroe Work, as well as his research and historical record keeping at Tuskegee Institute.  I don't imagine I'll have time in the next month to dig into this and leverage this presentation of history, but I'm hoping this message will be enough to inspire someone else to lead the charge. -- RobLa (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Place to pull information from: monroeworktoday.org 

message: The word "Negro" is in the article thirty six times. Not out of puritanism or political correctness but on the basis purely of text quality, this repetition seems to me to be quite excessive. The main culprit is the subject's bibliography list. (See also comments by DutchTreat  from some eleven years ago!) Perhaps someone could find a better way to list the books. -The Gnome (talk) 13:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree there was room for improvement. I gave it a try by creating list of annual editions with links to the original works. Trying to be accurate without being repetitious. - DutchTreat (talk) 11:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: N-excess
Talk:List of schools in Geelong

message: As part of an effort to prevent the deletion of this article at AfD, I have changed the format froma  simple lsit to a template table used in similar schools pages (see for example Schools in Tamworth, New South Wales). It occurs to me that while I have explained this at the AfD entry I havent explained it here or sought consensus for it. 
The changed format includes additional data about the schools, including their website and approximate enrolment. This is particularly useful for the primary schools, most of which don't have their own articles and therefore don't add much to this one. The article also features a short history section but it seems a bit general for a specific Geelong-based page and looks out of place. I would like to expand it to cover the history of Geelong schools specifically but this will depend on the available resources.
All this represents my views for this page only, of course. If anyone agrees, disagrees, agrees in part, whatever, I'd be interested in their opinions about what should be done as well or instead.  Euryalus 10:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Kasulu District

message: Kitema village is sorrounded by Kiheta hills in the eastern part, Ruhita village in the Western part, Nyakitonto village in Northern part and Nyenge and Migunga villages in the Southern part.
Kitema village possesses the hills with a lot of minerals especially Nyakachacha, Kiheta and Migunga hills where minerals like Oppers, Silk,Change colour are havested by local people though in small scale.
The is poor government support to the local people for harvesting these minerals, therefore there is poor extraction of these minerals.
                           RECOMMENDATION
Government must find investors to invest in these mines so that the available resources should be used to raise living standard of people of Kitema village and the Nation in general.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan Chija (talk • contribs) 09:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  KITEMA VILLAGE- KASULU DISTRICT 

message: Hi there!
There seems to be some sort of confusion with the coordinates, there are two and they are different with each other 
1. [coord|05|30|00|S|30|00|00|E|] and
2. [coord|04|34|48|S|30|06|00|E|]
Can somebody inform me which one is the correct one? Many thanks --Aristo Class (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinates 
Talk:List of Exalted publications

message: I added a few author credits, those I have right on hand.  These should be included!  I hope to add more later, but feel free, anybody who has the information, to add proper credits yourself. Artemis-Arethusa 00:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've put all the author credits in.  Some authors (on Amazon, my source of information on these) were only identified as "White Wolf Publishing", which I feel is unsatisfactory.  If anyone has information on the actual human beings who wrote these books, please correct the information. Artemis-Arethusa 19:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I have fixed links so they don't go to the wrong people with the same name. Artemis-Arethusa 19:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Author credits!

message: Should we include online products such as Glories of the Most High and the SAS adventure modules? If so, should this article be renamed to something like "list of Exalted publications" or "list of Exalted products"? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Online products 

message: Isn't the thousand correct actions a print book now?  I don't actually know, since I don't own it.  Can someone confirm?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.205.247 (talk) 01:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates
Talk:Jena Six

message: An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: Footnote 5 can only support the population, nothing indicate "about 10% of students are black and roughly 90% are white".--Jarodalien (talk) 13:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed that. I haven't done much work on this in recent years.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  source issue 

message: I understand that this is an article about the Jena Six, but shouldn't we get at least one sentence about what later on became of their victim? 2003:DD:DF15:D7E5:440F:C613:3B67:98E9 (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Justin Barker
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Power pitcher

message: The majority of the information in these articles is not presented in a accurate manner.  The first sentences of power pitcher (pp) and control pitcher (cp) cite a single online encylcopida.  The first sentence of PP asserts that they rely on velocity for their ability to succeed. Yet all the source says is "the power pitcher relies on velocity".  The cited source does not qualify the statement.  It seems that this sentence was duplicated in the pitcher article and it can be clarified there. Pitching combines control and speed, so it seems a bit very biased to say power pitchers rely on velocity without mentioning their control (some have great control - Johnson - and some have poor control - Ryan).   Some pitchers may throw harder than other pitchers, and some pitchers are better able to determine where their pitches end up.  The two are not mutually exclusive events, separating them out is not necessary and it seems that WP:DEL seems to be inline with this. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  00:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Hibernia National Bank

message: Removed reference to Hibernia Bank (San Francisco) being the bank robbed by Patty Hearst and the Symbionese Liberation Army.  The SLA/Hearst robbed the Carmichael CA Crocker Bank, not Hibernia Bank.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prestonlewis (talk • contribs) 13:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong; this PBS page and other references clearly state they robbed the Hibernia Bank.  Nonetheless, that bank was never connected to this bank; "Hibernia" (the old Latin name for Ireland) has numerous other uses.  Indeed, there is a local bank across Union Street from the Hibernia Bank Building which is now called "Hibernia Bank", but is NOT related to this one; it was founded in 1903 and called "Hibernia Homestead and Savings Association" until 2008, then "Hibernia Homestead Bank" until 2011 (FDIC records).  I moved the San Francisco bank to Hibernia Bank (San Francisco).  --RBBrittain (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Since November 2005, when Capital One acquired the company, the Hibernia National Bank has re-emerged. See: https://www.hibernia.bank/about-us/history : "Hibernia Bank has been giving personalized service to New Orleans and Jefferson Parish since 1886.
Initially founded to provide residential mortgage loans to homeowners, over the years Hibernia has grown to become a full service bank offering a broad range of financial services to meet the needs of our customers in the New Orleans Metropolitan Area.
In addition to our special brand of friendly personal service, we are known for competitive rates on loans and deposits, and for our careful attention to every detail in managing your accounts.
The website omits any mention of the bank's sale to Capitol One or subsequent events. Hibernia Bank now has 6 branches in 2 civil parishes. 2600:1702:1B60:5290:D97C:B022:8ACF:6CD7 (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The re-emergence of Hibernia National Bank
Wikipedia talk:April Fools

message: I propose that April Fools' Day joke DRV nominations from pages such as Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 April 1 and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 April 1 be split into a separate page, potentially called Wikipedia:April Fools/Deletion review. Traditionally, there are few joke DRVs per year (or none for some years, like 2022), and combining them into a dedicated page would allow readers to access all of them at once. Also, this would separate joke and serious DRVs, bringing DRV in line with processes such as AfD, where joke and serious entries are separated. Thanks. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 08:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If it keeps me from having to block anyone, I'm all for it. —Cryptic 01:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have created the page. Thanks, NotReallySoroka (talk) 17:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to split jokes DRVs into a single page 

message: Should we contain serious, planned actions for future April Fools Day? Thingofme (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scheduled serious actions on April Fools Day 

message: In the style of my AFDDRV proposal above, I propose merging all XfDs of one type (except AfD and MfD) from all years into a single page. For instance, TfDs from all the past years, such as those from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 April 1#April Fools' Day nominations, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 April 1#April Fools' Day nominations, and other years, can be merged into a single page titled Wikipedia:April Fools/Templates for discussion.
Since there are few joke TfDs, FfDs... per year, this decision would allow these pages to be streamlined and centralize, rather than having a litany of pages with few XfDs each. This would also allow complete separation of joke and serious XfDs, as is done for April Fools' AfDs. Thanks, NotReallySoroka (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to merge joke XFDs into organized pages 

message: I just read every article in existence in regards to April Fools' but still can't understand what the rules are? Let me get this straight, no pranks on any visible page, no pranks on user pages, and no pranks anywhere else than your own user page? Am I getting this right? 多多123 (✉ • ✎)  21:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  April Fools'
Talk:J. Hillis Miller Sr.

message: 1.  Family background—parents and siblings?
2.  In On Literature (Routledge, 2002), J. Hillis Miller Jr. notes "my father . . . was a clergyman, a Baptist minister."  No mention of this background has been found in any other reference, and it has not yet been independently confirmed.
3.  Subject of Ph.D. dissertation?
4.  Specific classes taught as a professor?
5.  Other policy initiatives as associate commissioner of education?
All additional references and information are greatly appreciated.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional information needed
Talk:J. Hoberman

message: I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. ISBNs and other persistent identifiers, where available, are commented out, but still available for reference. This is a work in progress; feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 04:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography
Talk:J. J. Benjamin

message: The author's full name is Israel Joseph Benjamin.  See his work, "Three Years in America," or the Jewish Encyclopedia, for verification of his name.  This being the case, the name of this article should be edited to I.J. Benjamin.  Thanks!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.122.14 (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Nationwide Festival of Light

message: See Talk:Christian Action Research and Education. – Fayenatic (talk) 21:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible merger with [[Christian Action Research and Education]]

message: Hello,
I just saw this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdU_6jUQI9s where it is described how Mary Whitehouse's Nationwide Festival of Light tried to pursue Gay News for "blasphemy" in a published poem, and tried to prevent The Life of Brian from Monty Python from getting out. Maybe these two points deserve being described in the article. --Agatino Catarella (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gay News and Monty Python 

message: Article lead currently concludes the subsequent growth in the availability of sexually explicit and violent material would suggest that it had little effect on the media or on consumers. There is no reference given.
But there is a reference later in the article for the claim In the nation as a whole, however, the impact of the Festival was much less evident than supporters had hoped, and it is thought that the openly evangelical positions espoused by the Festival's leaders had alienated a number of people who would otherwise have supported its aims. The reference does not however support the claim made.
And that paragraph goes on A much greater range of explicit material became available in the years which followed. Commercial, political and artistic pressures worked against any attempt at a stricter censorship, either by law or by voluntary agreement. That is probably true, but without a reference it is OR.
So there is much said there in Wikipedia's voice that is OR or POV or both. Andrewa (talk) 08:55, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced POV
Talk:Jim Marzilli

message: This article is libelous. Marzilli was never charged with sexual assault so it is impossible that he could have been convicted of it. He was instead indicted for and pled guilty to four counts of "verbally annoying and accosting" a person, one count of "disturbing the peace" and one count of "resisting arrest." 
Some media reports included factually incorrect statements. A copy of the sentencing memos from either the prosecution, the defense or the trial judge will confirm this. Remove the libelous material immediately until you do your homework.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.117.30 (talk) 12:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: In response to the insufficient context objection, I rewrote the first paragraph to provide more background information.  Rickterp 15:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fixed intro paragraph
Talk:Lagrange bracket

message: MathSciNet search produced only a handful of mentions of "Lagrange brackets". According to a few of them, a Lagrange bracket is an analogue of Poisson bracket in the case of a contact manifold. The review to the following paper outlines their origin and mentions that they "have fallen out of use":
Iglesias, Patrick, Les origines du calcul symplectique chez Lagrange [The origins of symplectic calculus in Lagrange's work], L'Enseign. Math. (2) 44 (1998), no. 3-4, 257--277 .
 reproduces the same formula as the article here, but is a bit more careful about the nature of these expressions. As far as I could tell, they are the components of the symplectic form with respect to the pair of (non-canonical) coordinates u, v. I am going to edit the article to make it more mathematically meaningful. Arcfrk 01:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it, you know this kind of stuff better than I do. I had never heard about them so I'm not surprised to hear that they have fallen out of use. I don't understand what you mean with "they are the components of the symplectic form with respect to the pair of (non-canonical) coordinates u, v" though; u and v are only two variables so they can't be used as coordinates? By the way, my edit was prompted by reading two pages of the cited book (via Google Books) which does not form a good basis to understand the concept. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The text you wrote in the article itself is very clear. Thanks. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Definition" is flawed
Talk:Beavis and Butt-Head in Virtual Stupidity

message: This article spoils the first several tasks in the game with no warning beforehand.  71.170.88.163 (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Not 4 Sale (Kardinal Offishall album)

message: If you go to Kardinal Offishall's Official Imeem page he has the mastered CD, they have Nicole Sherzinger in place of Rhianna I corrected this earlier but some people just have to change it back to the wrong one.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.99.106 (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rhianna Is Not In Numba 1

message: Here's the real credits for the album: http://www.dubcc.com/forum/index.php?topic=190386.0  —Preceding unsigned comment added by LiLFame (talk • contribs) 01:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At the end of the track "Nina", Kardinal says "Dups", which is further proof that it was produced by Supa Dups, rather than J.R. Blackjays1 (talk) 05:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  False Credits, there's no JR Rotem 

message: I have some evidence that she is on the officail track because all official tracks  are always put on myspace pages and on Kardinals page it has RIHANNA and to see it go to his myspace page
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=47259791
Also doesnt meean if you heard the other side of the song with the pussycat dolls on youtube doesnt mean its true so stop trying changing the stuff that is really true  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.214.18 (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes Rihanna is on "Number 1" 
Talk:Order of Lakandula

message: The contents of this article, particularly those referring to the criteria and the various ranks of the Order of Lakandula is public domain since it is a part of a public document (EO 236, series of 2003). It is, therefore, not owned by www.quezon.ph , whose author is merely quoting from the EO.--StyngerSmash 01:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Open Access (archived proposal)

message: I'm giving Mindspillage a hand in drafting this policy. Just wanted to say hi, and a few words by way of explanation. 
I'm a (mostly-inactive) Wikipedian and (despite said inactivity) a proud supporter and frequent user of Wikipedia. I'm also a proud supporter of open access research. I see shared values between Wikipedia and OA, and benefits to both resulting from their confluence. Mindspillage and I had previously discussed possibilities for cooperation and mutual benefit, and more recently identified this document as one that would be of value to both the Wikipedia and the OA communities.
Needless to say, feedback is welcome; I'm sure this document will be strengthened by the participation of Wikipedians. I also intend to call attention to this document in OA circles, in the hopes of getting some feedback from them.
In particular, I welcome links to pre-existing work or commentary on this or related subjects, so we can benefit from the earlier literature and avoid unnecessary duplication of effort. I also especially encourage translations and adaptations of this document to other Wikipedias, once it is completed.
In the interests of disclosure (and as a disclaimer), I am a board member of FreeCulture.org and a current intern at SPARC, both of which take interest in open access, though my opinions expressed here do not reflect the position of either organization, but only my own. --Gavin Baker 01:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: At this time, this proposal is under active development (and is therefore not actively seeking feedback). It has been tagged with , so it will be included in :Category:Wikipedia proposals.
When a fuller draft has been arrived at, it will be posted at some combination of WP:RFC, Wikipedia:Centralized discussion, and/or Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), in addition to mailing lists, IRC, and maybe some other places, including potentially Talk:Open access.
Of course, you are welcome to comment here and/or to contribute to developing the proposed guideline, anyway. --Gavin Baker 04:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal under active development 

message: I see two halves to this guideline: One is a descriptive how-to guide for Wikipedians and open access authors, journals, and archivists. The other is a prescriptive guideline recommending that Wikipedians do something. I understand the prescriptive guideline might be more objectionable (or at least raise more questions) than a simple explanation of open access literature and how to use it. My opinion is that the descriptive part by itself would be valuable and should stand, even if the prescription doesn't; but I think the prescriptive part is also desirable. --Gavin Baker 05:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guideline: Prefer open access sources