lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Self-image

message: Physicality, -ies is in several dictionaries I have checked and the edit page for this article considers it misspelled. I am  unsure about what I can do to correct this error.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.134.34 (talk) 23:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physicality 

message: There's really not much there, and it's doubtful there ever will be. On the other hand, there's not much here either, so lets put here whatever is referenced and usable there. bd2412 T 03:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal for "[[Residual self image]]" 

message: According to the lead section, "A more technical term for self-image that is commonly used by social and cognitive psychologists is self-schema." If that is indeed another term for the same thing, then why do we have separate articles for these? If, on the other hand, there is a difference, not only should that statement be removed, but we also need an explanation of the difference.There is also an article on self-concept, which takes an effort to state that this is not to be confused with self-image, but does not explain what the distinction is either. From the description given, it is much the same thing again.  --Lambiam 20:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: "Self-concept is made up of one's self-schemas", so that clarifies their relation. Whether they should have separate articles is a separate question. Paradoctor (talk) 23:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

text: There are cases where the terminology in the literature is confused, not merely the Wikipedia articles about the field. Wouldn't be surprised if that is the case here. Paradoctor (talk) 23:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a field with which I'm not at all familiar. But, having skimmed some of the literature now, my feeling is that it would be advantageous to merge these articles, as well as the article Looking-glass self, into one consolidated article that treats these notions together in a coherent way. That will also create room for a better treatment of the history and development of the theory, which appears to have sprung mainly from the ground-breaking work of G. H. Mead and C. H. Cooley. I also think that the article Self-concept is the best target for such a merge. I am not going to undertake steps in effectuating any of this, having too much on my plate already; I'm just stating my opinion here about the best course of action for Wikipedia.  --Lambiam 08:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  How are they different? 

message: How do our friends, families and communities influence our self image 41.121.110.150 (talk) 06:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life orientation
Category talk:American physicists

message: What's the definition of "American" here? Work in America or born in America or what? Because if it is "work in America" you're going to have almost every physicist in the 20th century in here. I think "born in" is a better idea. Which would make Ernest Lawrence and J. Robert Oppenheimer "American physicists," and not Enrico Fermi and Edward Teller. I think that would be a more sensible category... --Fastfission 14:29, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Liberty (Duran Duran album)

message: The current revision suggests that all songs were written by "Alassmi Gittion."  Research at other siteshttp://www.allmusic.com/album/liberty-mw0000690131 suggests that this is not true.  Indeed, this is one of the only search engine hits for "Alassmi Gittion."  I'm reluctant to change it in case that name was, in fact, used on the album cover.   R. Kevin Doyle (talk) 11:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:   Alassmi Gittion? 

message: No supporting tour but Sterling Campbell left when the tour was over? Can someone tell me how that works? DW Celt 23:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sterling Campbell Questions 
Talk:Notorious (Duran Duran album)

message: As Annie Nightingale said on BBC Four that Duran moved in the 80s from a New Romantic sound in a "white soul/funk" direction  (i.e. they became a funk-pop or pop/funk band)...would you say that Notorious has to be classed as Sophisti-Pop as well?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.173.247 (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Annie Nightingale
Wikipedia talk:Wikipedians (old)

message: For an October 2004 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wikipedians
----
I've changed this to redirect to Wikipedia.  anthony (see warning) 15:02, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

message: How about we deprecate the listing in this page in favor of Wikipedia:Wikipedians
and other various listing pages in that namespace? Then this could be an encyclopedic article about Wikipedians, with "See Also" section pointing to the page(s) in Wikipedia-namespace. Or maybe just convert this into a redirect to Wikipedia:Wikipedians? jni 10:08, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Why this duplicate page?
Talk:Mahadev Desai

message: Don't you think that it looks like that the "early life" part is a copyright violation? see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahadev_Desai&diff=prev&oldid=95689088 Yann 21:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:5-MeO-DiPT

message: This article says that unless 5-MeO-DIPT was added to Schedule I by Congress by October 4, 2004, it would revert to "legal" status.
Does anyone know what happened with that? It seems silly to forecast a date that has already past.--Feitclub 15:56, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
Nevermind, found the answer. Will edit page. --Feitclub 16:05, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
Updating the legality part. Flying Hamster 01:46, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

message: 5-MeO-DiPT was changed from a duplicate article to a redirect, and links here now.  --Heah 08:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have moved the article back to the uppercased 5-Methoxy-diisopropyltryptamine as per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemicals/Style_guidelines#Capitalization (English language convention). There is a redirect in  place from the lowercase to the actual article. Cacycle 17:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  redirect 

message: I have changed the title of this article from 5-Methoxy-N,N-diisopropyltryptamine to 5-MeO-DiPT because the previous title did not follow the Wikipedia title guidelines as follows:
1. Concision: The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
2. Recognizability: The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
3. Naturalness: [Related to the above guideline] The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.
4. Precision: The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. 
5. Consistency: The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above. [Related compounds such as 5-MeO-DMT and 5-MeO-αMT, and nearly all of the 4- or 5- substituted tryptamines are all named using this nomenclature, reinforcing points numbers 2 and 3. Repylom (talk) 07:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title change
Talk:Jagdish Chandra Bose

message: Please discuss here Wikipedia:Duplicate_articles#J, Alren 15:59, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

message: Could this "Sir" title prefix be properly wikified, please? Perhaps Sir#Formal styling?, or Knight#Becoming a knight, or Knight#Honorific orders, or British_honours_system#Indian_Orders? TIA.
Jerome Potts 06:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: uh... done. Order of the British Empire. Jerome Potts 06:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I changed two occurrences of 'Sir Bose' to 'Sir Jagadish'. In some English dialects the (improper) use of 'Sir Bose' would convey a slight insult, which I presume was not intended. Even though this occurs within a quotation, unless there is good reason to stick strictly to the original it seems rather more genteel to use the correct form of address. Davy p 00:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that a quotation, assuming it is accurate, should be left alone. After all, the convention on the proper usage of "Sir", as documented in Sir#Formal styling, is also subject to evolving; perhaps the quoted gentleman had his own idea on how that title should be used. Jerome Potts 19:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sir" 

message: I believe IEEE published a major reassessment of Bose with the conclusion that his work defintiely was prior to that of Marconi. I will try to get that reference. Meanwhile, here is something related: http://www.tuc.nrao.edu/~demerson/bose/bose.html
DaveBorman 19:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reassessment of Bose

message: I have made a few changes in the infobox consistent with Wikipedia:Don't overuse flags. Also moved the available image inside the infobox. These changes make this article consistent with other articles e.g. featured article on Rabindranath Tagore. These edits were reverted without any explanation once. So, I request anyone, not agreeing with the changes, to please discuss concerns here.
::Please read "Don't Overuse flags" once more . And also from that - "Do not rewrite history
::Flags should not be used to misrepresent the nationality of a historical figure, event, object, ... " -Bharatveer 08:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, if your concern is only about flags, then please change the flags only, why are you moving the image down? Isn't the image better placed inside the infobox, right at the beginning of article? For almost all featured biography articles, the best available image has been used inside the infobox. Secondly, Bose was legally a citizen of British India. He was born as a British Indian and he died as such. Claiming him either Indian or Bangladeshi is indeed an attempt to rewrite history. So, I am changing back nationality and image positioning. However, this time I'm not using any flags. Arman Aziz 09:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes in infobox; please don't revert without discussion
Talk:Indianapolis Motor Speedway

message: The page said "The final brick added to the track was made of gold ..." Now that's obviously bullshit, so I've removed the "gold" part. If anyone can provide a description of what that ominous "gold brick" actually was, (like a standard brick, possibly covered in gold leaf maybe?) feel free to put that interesting information back in. --BjKa (talk) 18:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the reference, it was gold-plated brass. I've restored the text, with the additional information. DH85868993 (talk) 09:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  gold brick
Wikipedia talk:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences

message: Domskitect (talk) 09:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Architects 

message: Domskitect (talk) 09:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Architecture Practices 

message: I would like some knowledgeable input concerning Trisodium Phosphate Substitutes.  LandMarkMax has produced a product called "TSP" which passes as a superior cleaning compound.  It appears to be Trisodium Phosphate but nowhere on the container is there any mention of Phosphate. A simple statement on the container says it contains Sodium Meta-Silicate.  A discussion of whether this compound is as effective as Trisodium Phosphate would be a welcome addition to your website.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.75.199.15 (talk) 04:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trisodium Phosphate Substitute 

message: I saw under agriculture someone said manufacturered product and would like clarification ==  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.101.160.189 (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: ==
Talk:Chevy Chase

message: I have been scourging on the internet in the past two days, trying to find a direct source that claims that Chevy Chase slapped Cheri Oteri in 1997 in a rehearsal. It appears to be added on the SNL wiki on July 5, 2014. I would ask the uploader where he got that information, but he was deceased since 2022. To make matters worse, the media is constantly reporting on that factoid - either without a citation (Pens and Patron in 2017) or in the case of CheatSheet.net, citing the Fandom page in 2019. Other articles such as ScreenRant in 2022, Cracked.com in 2022, and Daily Star in 2023 reference it without ANY citations.
And in books about SNL, such as Live From New York, it mentions that he made an awful joke about AIDS to Terry Sweeney, but ZERO mentions of Cheri Oteri in 1997. Cheri Oteri NEVER mentions that incident in any of her interviews. In fact, when she was asked the question about a beloved host who was actually "an absolute asshole", she brought up her negative experiences with Kevin Spacey (Source: Radio Andy). In a more detailed interview with KPCS about her time on SNL, she never brought up Chevy Chase at all.
Thus, I believe that it was most likely a made-up event, and have thus removed it from the Wikipedia page. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 22:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed mention 1997 SNL Incident; most probably fake information
Talk:Levellers

message: "vocal appeals to the crowd" ??   Does that mean 'speeches'?   'pamphlets, petitions and speeches' is certainly punchier than 'pamphlets, petitions and vocal appeals to the crowd'.
DlronW (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  vocal appeals to the crowd? 

message: The sentence 'Lilburne considered the term pejorative and called his supporters "Levellers so-called" and preferred "Agitators"' is rather misleading, in that it suggests that the terms 'Levellers' and 'Agitators' are synonymous. The Agitators were delegates or representatives elected by their fellow soldiers of some regiments of the New Model Army, a very unusual example of grass-roots democracy emerging in the military. Many of them were Levellers or Leveller sympathizers, but most of the ordinary Levellers were civilians.
PhilG (talk) 22:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Levellers and Agitators
Talk:SR-71

message: I came here looking for the band (www.sr-71.net). Maybe needs to have a disambiguation page and a note on the SR-71 blackbird article? 212.159.61.65 17:10, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The note seems to be there now. A disambiguation page isn't appropriate because the band is the only other alternative meaning, and the aircraft is by far the more common usage. --86.136.18.25 16:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Where's the band
Talk:Antipope Felix II

message: The identity of this "unnamed encyclopedia" needs to be cited. —Triskaideka 17:30, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: In John Delaney's Dictionary of Saints Felix II (antipope) is said to have 'ruled' between 355 and 365 A.D.  Succeeded by 'antipope' Ursinus who lasted only two years, which were simultaneous with that of Damasus I. L Hamm 20:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Successor 

message: This article breaks the chain where you can keep pressing predecessor.24.65.95.239 (talk) 01:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What chain?  Please indicate the link that leads to this antipope.  Lima (talk) 05:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Predecessor
Talk:Apache POI

message: I removed the comment on HSSF utility which was said to be Not a very robust utility and is notoriously finicky. First, it was not -based and seemed as Original Research to me. Second, we use at work POI 3.0 Alpha 1 for one year now to read Excel files generated by both EXCEL 8.0 and 11.0 (and parse their content) and write them back after modifications, and we never had any problems, even when specific fonts, foreground and background colors, and alignment stuff are used in the cells. Hervegirod 10:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What version do you use ? You really should try 3.0.2, it is even able to write EXCEL files with formulas. I think EXCEL support has improved a lot since 3.0. However I did not try to read EXCEL files with charts or filters. Hervegirod (talk) 11:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: HSSF not a very robust utility ?

message: When I used to give talks on the project / APIs, I sometimes brought in actual poi. .  It was disgusting and stank my dishwasher/dishes up for days.  I stopped mainly because my wife really didn't like all of our dishes smelling disgusting.  Andrew C. Oliver (founder) ;-)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.147.199.228 (talk) 03:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  More fun facts
Talk:List of Chrysler engines

message: There seems to be a lot of engines in the listing that have noting to do with Chrysler! I know Chrysler bought AMC/Jeep in 1987, but technically engines like the old F-head four (Go-Devil) shouldn't be listed as "Chrysler" engines. The AMC designed 4.0L six and 2.5L four are questionable, but the argument can be made that Chrysler was the last to actually produce them, and Chrysler did make some refinements in the designs in the 90s. Am I the only one of the opinion that listingthe older engines that aren't of direct Chrysler lineage misleading in an encyclopedia? I'd like comments before making changes.
:It is disingenuous, isn't it? I had intended removing the Willys, Kaiser, Mitsubishi, Renault, etc. engines from the list a while ago, but decided not to for lack of a better place to put them. --93JC 22:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chrysler Engines, in old Jeeps? 

message: I am trying to follow your page on the Chrysler and AMC 360. I am confused. Are they the same engine made by Chrysler or not. I have seen no evidence to point in either direction. I have a 1973 Hornet that I want to put a 360 into. Will the Chrysler Engine bolt straight up?
Please email me with an answer as no-one can give me a straight answer.
scott.briggs@optusnet.com.au
:The Chrysler and AMC 360s are not the same engine.  Unfortunately this page is written in a confusing fashion.  The reason the AMC 360 is listed on this page is because it was used in the Jeep Grand Wagoneer after AMC was merged into Chrysler.  However, the Chrysler 360 and AMC 360 are different engines and it's doubtful that a Mopar 360 would bolt up. TomTheHand 12:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chrysler 360 and AMC 1973 360 

message: I recall reading (somewhere...) of a French-built, Chrysler-designed hemi, around 130ci, intended for armored cars or something in France in the '40s, being sold in SAm (Brazil?) into the '70s... Can anybody substantiate?  TREKphiler hit me ♠  02:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: French hemi?

message: I noticed these are missing from the list. 12.15.53.135 (talk) 06:15, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  2.2L and 2.5L engines turbo and N/A
Talk:Hand strike

message: from VfD: 
Before I spend a lot of time fixing the many problems with this orphan/dead-end article (needs move to lowercase title, numerous misspellings, no wikilinks, needs intro before first header, etc.), I want to find out if anyone actually considers it an encylopedic topic--especially considering what would link here? We don't have fist or fist strike articles, and I don't see anyone searching for the title--is an article that will likely never be found worth having? Niteowlneils 19:07, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: PS Another Wikipedian has added Wikilinks, so it is no longer a dead-end page. All the other issues remain. Niteowlneils 19:09, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Talk:Gray Television

message: This was copy-and-paste moved from Grey Television. Aranel ("Sarah") 19:14, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy-and-paste move 

message: The table listing the stations must be modified to look like the one that is present on the List of stations owned or operated by Sinclair Broadcast Group. J4lambert (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Modification of television station ownership table

message: Merger proposal == I propose to merge Quincy Media into [[GrayTelevision]. Quincy Media Stations are owned by Gray Television Peyton dodeon (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion is at Talk:Quincy_Media#Merger proposal. – NJD-DE (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The result of the discussion was to not merge. – NJD-DE (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quincy Media might Merged into Gray Television 

message: Help 174.240.252.76 (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  I know the zodiac killer the charlie project phantom killer and interstate killer
Template talk:Subdivisions of Ontario

message: Brant and Brantford are separate single-tiers but form one census division, so I used a hyphen between them instead of a pipe, to indicate this. Guelph is no different from all the rest of the separated muni's, so I removed Guelph and gave the separated's an italicized link to their list (as none of them form census divisions in their own right).
Radagast 19:20, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
The older discussion from MediaWiki talk:Ontario, which I deleted, can be found here. --Ixfd64 18:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

message: Let's get some consensus and settle whether to include Historical areas: Hunter Island. It does not belong here because this is a template for the political subdivisions of Ontario. In fact, if we were to list historical subdivisions, then it should list former counties and such, but not this island. There is no indication whatsoever that it ever was an recognized political subdivision. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a template for "Subdivisions of Ontario", not for "Political Subdivisions of Ontario" only. I agree that it serves mostly to outline political subdivisions, but not exclusively. Historical subdivisions are important and relevant too... I will revert... 140.139.35.250 (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

text: * While the title is generic "Subdivisions of Ontario", it clearly means political as is more than evident from its content. Hunter Island has nothing in common with the other entities in this list. What is so important about it that it needs inclusion here over other historical subdivisions such as former counties? There is nothing in the article signifying any historic importance other than a boundary dispute. So, even if we include non-political subdivisions in this template, there still is no reason to include Hunter Island. It just never was or is a recognized subdivision of Ontario. Why you are pushing so hard to have this included? -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 20:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Hunter Island
Talk:Madness

message: Removing the link to Sparta is vandalism, please do not make such a modification without discussing it on the talk page.
Kakama5 (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone reverted his edit with no justification, so I will restore it. If you have a problem please discuss it on the talk page, or else it is a violation of wikipedia policy to make such blatant vandalism to the fiction section. 68.101.12.238 (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sparta

message: It's been a while since I was active on Wikipedia, and I can't recall what the procedure is for applying for semi-protection.  But maybe it would be smart, considering we've had about 300 Hellenes drop by this page to make their views known.  (Either that or we should give up and let it stand.  It is kind of funny.)  ~Marblespire (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we semi-protect this page?