lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Murakoz horse

message: This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage.) Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources.  Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: A cursory Google search shows that fewer page hits define the Međimurje horse  than use the phrase Murakoz horse  .  I am all for correct names for things, but where there is a common name that is perhaps better known, then there is no harm to having a redirect in the category.  Might prevent the problem of articles being recreated with variant spellings.  Montanabw(talk) 18:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization
Talk:Justice Select Committee

message: This page was created due to the replacement of the Constitutional Affairs Committee with the Justice Committee. -Rrius (talk) 01:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

message: This section is a year out of date. See the Parliament website.  I'm not good on tables.  There may be a case for keeping former members as a list since it shows area of expertise. JRPG (talk) 09:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of date membership list.
Talk:Ivan Chisov

message: Exact fall height:21,980 feet as per urban myth desktop calendar.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.149.100 (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:International Aerobatic Club

message: According to http://www.iac.org the correct spelling is "International Aerobatic Club", thus the article International Aerobatics Club should be merged into the article International Aerobatic Club. --Vierzehn (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal
Talk:International Aviation Safety Assessment Program

message: While I enjoy a lot of what's written on the following site, especially about the Airbus A300-B4-60XR and AAL587 crash, I wonder if this group is possibly intentionally misleading people into thinking they have something to do with this ICAO safety project. http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/menu/index.htm If anyone can confirm this "The International Aviation Safety Association (IASA) 2002" has nothing to do with the IASA Program, I'd appreciate it. Article looks great. 2601:19A:4480:140:41A6:CF70:F9CC:DE94 (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any relation with IASA-Intl and similar sites?
Talk:Soviet Heavy Draft

message: According to Simon & Schusters "Horses and Ponies" breed encyclopedia, as well as the Oklahoma State University breed project (among others, probably, these were just the first couple places I looked), the Soviet and Russian Heavy Drafts are two seperate breeds.  They were both developed as heavy drafts in the former USSR, but are officially different, from what I can see.  I'd say - no merge.Dana boomer (talk) 01:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. Well, based on the standard that Indonesia claims 7 or 8 different "Breeds" of scrubby little pony-sized horses with bad heads and straight shoulders that honest to god don't seem to me to be all that different from one another (grumble, grumble, grumble goes the person who wrote up 2 or 3 of the articles on them!),  I'm OK with not merging, though the Simon and Schuster book is outdated.  Actually, the Oklahoma State site is a bit uneven too, have you checked Kentucky Horse Park/International Museum of the Horse?  If that site lists both too, then I'll go along with it.   Montanabw(talk) 04:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.equinekingdom.com/breeds/heavy_horses/soviet_heavy_draft.htm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Talk:Japan Air Lines Flight 350

message: I restored an older version of the article. The new version, which seems to have been auto-translated from Japanese, was nearly unreadable. I don't have time to fix that version, but if someone else does, that would be great. In the meantime, we should stick with the older version. 98.28.19.62 (talk) 03:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  

message: *http://jtsb.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/aircraft/download/pdf/58-3-JA8061-01.pdf
**http://www.webcitation.org/5zh4b5Hvg
*http://jtsb.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/aircraft/download/pdf/58-3-JA8061-02.pdf
**http://www.webcitation.org/5zh4dJGqe
*http://jtsb.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/aircraft/download/pdf/58-3-JA8061-03.pdf
**http://www.webcitation.org/5zh4gACVi
*http://jtsb.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/aircraft/download/pdf/58-3-JA8061-04.pdf
**http://www.webcitation.org/5zh4iLIng
*http://jtsb.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/aircraft/download/pdf/58-3-JA8061-05.pdf
**http://www.webcitation.org/5zh4oB2vW
*http://jtsb.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/aircraft/download/pdf/58-3-JA8061-06.pdf
**http://www.webcitation.org/5zh4qr8Ga
*http://jtsb.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/aircraft/download/pdf/58-3-JA8061-07.pdf
**http://www.webcitation.org/5zh4txG8Y
WhisperToMe (talk) 01:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Japanese accident report files
Talk:Jet Age

message: The first sentence of this article refers to social changes brought about by large jet aircraft.  However, the term "Jet Age" was current long before commercial jet airliners had any appreciable social impact.  It first appears in The New York Times in 1947 (1959 for the Times of London), when the only jet-powered aircraft were military designs--fighters, primarily, and a handful of medium bombers.  Clearly the term recognizes that jet airplanes of all sorts would profoundly effect all areas of aviation. I agree that the expression is generally used to describe the 1960s, when jets made air travel accessible to the masses.  However, the term has other meanings, and the article should reflect that. 165.91.64.189 (talk) 05:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: definitions

message: As I assume this Jet Age refers to the 50s and early 60s, wouldn't that be what is considered the "Atomic Age"? As nuclear power never fully reached its potential (or, at least, the potential envisioned by post-war science fiction writers) should the Jet Age be considered real as opposed to the fictional/fantasy that never was Atomic Age? 67.4.32.178 (talk) 08:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atomic Age
Talk:GAF Jindivik

message: The article says "In 1997, the production line was re-opened to build another 15 for Britain." By what company? Fairey Aviation was long gone and its successor Westland Aircraft had become Westland Helicopters and did probably not make any target drones. I can not access the source. /Esquilo (talk) 10:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  1997 production 
Talk:Sant'Andrea in Percussina

message: :it:Sant'Andrea in Percussina has quite a bit to go on. FlagSteward (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: it article
Talk:Martín Berasategui

message: This wiki is severely outdated, please research and update. Thanks. 67.135.4.210 (talk) 13:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated, Urgent
Talk:L'Ambroisie

message: Hi, this is Zwdy. I have made some changes to the article. I reconstructed the article by adding head to each section and arranging the existing content under each section. Within each section, I added some new content and new references. I also fixed some minor grammar errors.Zwdy (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I just made a pass. I removed a couple articles for tone and there are definitely some ways to improve the article still. I left one "citation needed" tag for example. That said, I think your change have really improved the article significantly. Thanks for your hard work! —mako๛ 01:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Made changes to the article.
Talk:Astrance

message: I turned this article into a redirect to Pascal Barbot, but hopefully in the future someone can give it some love and make it a proper article. My reasoning was I noticed this article contained only one sentence that wasn't already in the article about Barbot (which I've now merged there), and I found it difficult to locate reliable sources — most of the ones I saw were either more about Barbot than Astrance or just advertising fluff pieces. — Majora4 (talk) 06:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect
Talk:Sugar Chile Robinson

message: Here's an external link to a video of the subject performing in his youth.  I'll leave it to others whether and how to link to it.  162.129.250.14 (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video 

message: :"Frank Isaac Robinson (born 28 December 1938), known in his early career as a musician as Sugar Chile Robinson, is an American blues and boogie-woogie pianist, singer, and later psychologist, whose career began as a child prodigy."
This construction means that he was a boogie-woogie psychologist.  Part of me wants to believe that this was true....    Heavenlyblue (talk) 18:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Later profession
Talk:Saliha

message: The mandates of Palestine and Syria (incl. Lebanon) came into force simultaneously (League of Nations Official Journal, Vol 3 (1922) p823).  And the Israeli state didn't come into existence until 1948.  So a lot of the lead is plain wrong.  Zerotalk 05:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, you are mistaken.  The 1920 agreement only specified an approximate boundary (just 4 sentences devoted to the entire Lebanon-Palestine border) but it established a joint commission to determine the precise boundary.  The commission decided to slightly move the border in several places, including where these villages were.  Their conclusion was sealed in the 1923 agreement. Governments who make treaties can agree to replace them by different treaties, it is a basic principle of law, so there is no basis for your argument that the 1920 agreement held until 1948. Zerotalk 01:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  bad history
Talk:Belmond Le Manoir aux Quat'Saisons

message: It comes across a little too promotional. Surely there is more to be written about a building of this age than what happened to it since the 1980's.RafikiSykes (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you're right about it being too promotional. But the article is about the restaurant (which is notable), not about the manor house it operates in (which is worthy enough, but probably not notable). Maproom (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advert like 
Talk:Edward E. Hammer

message: This man is more deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize than Al Gore. We need more people staying in the lab inventing ways to save power, and less people jet-setting around to blow hot air. I only hope the backlash of people who realize this about Gore will ultimately have a positive effect for conservation... Zaphraud (talk) 02:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Tasman Lake

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Tour boat among the icebergs on Tasman Lake.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on December 10, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-12-10. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Tour boat among the icebergs on Tasman Lake.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 
Talk:Metod Trobec

message: Speedy deletion is only for topics that do not have any attempt to establish notability. This person was a convicted serial killer, so notability being asserted should be bloody obvious, even withthe article being a stub at this time. On top of that, the person who added the tag is a new editor account created today with an extremely bizarre editing history consisting of a few minor typo edits but primarily jumping in out of the blue to AFD arguments and then going around and tagging pretty much every article I created with ridiculous tags that clearly have no justification, purely out of spite. Not only should this article not be deleted, the person who tagged it should be blocked as it is a harassment-only account, probably a sockpuppet of someone involved in the Tim Cotterill page that I listed for deletion. DreamGuy (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  improper speedy deletion tag 
Talk:Reduced to Ashes (book)

message: What makes the entry a "blatant ad" as tagged by nominator for speedy deletion? It will be appreciated if the nominator explain the reasons first on the talk page so that they may be talked about. Thanks ---- A. S. AulakhTalk 02:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect, the text of the article sounds like it is taken from the book's cover and preface/table of contents. --Orange Mike  | Talk 03:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OrangeMike, I respect your concern, however I still wonder about your tagging of the article for "speedy deletion" instead of tagging it so that more editors could contribute to the article. The tag you put there on the article page clearly instructs the nominator to provide explanation for that nomination on the talk page but I found none. Moreover, tagging an article of notability as the one in subject with speedy deletion is not an ideal action if you have the contention that you had. Thankfully, an administrator noted the notability and did not delete the article. In such situation, if the original contributor or a page does not get back soon and the admin does not understand the notability, the pages can get deleted discouraging the editors from bringing notable information to Wikipedia. We, as wikipedia editors, need to understand that people do spend time on inputting information and such page deletions dump their time. The quality of an entry could be a different question which can be dealt with tags other than "speedy deletion". Anyway, some other editor has modified a few things on the article and removed the tag. If you still have concerns please re-tag the article and put your concerns on the talk page here so that we can discuss and arrive at a solution for your concerns. Thank you for noting the article and I look forward to work positively with you. Regards, ---- A. S. AulakhTalk 19:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomination for Speedy Deletion
Template talk:Barracks Batteries Bunkers and Forts in Sydney

message: La Perouse, Malabar, Mosman and Watsons Bay aren't part of Sydney? At first I thought "Sydney" was referring to the City of Sydney, but it includes bankstown, holsworthy and a few others. So why are some other suburbs separated? Anoldtreeok (talk) 08:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Some other suburbs were kept separate due to the fact that there were not enough articles to fill up there own section ***Adam*** 09:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See it's been changed. I think the way it is now works better, a bit less ambiguous. Anoldtreeok (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. If you still think that further adjustments are necessary please feel free to adjust it. ***Adam*** (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Certain parts of Sydney
Talk:New Zealand Legislative Council

message: The Legislative Council as discussed in this article was of course proceeded by an earlier one from 1841 to 1853. Here's a reference to it. Should this be covered by a separate article, or added to this article? I favour the former approach. If you concur, how about New Zealand Legislative Council (1841–1853)? Schwede66 18:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Lewis, regarding your latest edit, can you please have a look at the comment above? Schwede66 05:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure it requires a second article at this stage, or if it ever will. The Legislative Council prior to 1853 (as the NZ History article states) was largely perfunctory; I was simply editing the article to show the body itself pre-dated 1853. (The elected Government didn't gain the ability to appoint MLCs until 1857 apparently) --LJ Holden 05:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the reasons why I'm suggesting that we might want to keep things separate is that we now have the List of members of the New Zealand Legislative Council article, which is complete, but only for 1853 onwards. I'd prefer to keep the earlier bodies and its members separate. And apart from the 'general' Legislative Council, there were of course the LCs of the provinces. But maybe we simply have separate lists within that article. Schwede66 05:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'm not bothered either way - I just wanted to add the LC existed prior to 1853, as part of research for the Colony of New Zealand article. --LJ Holden 05:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legislative Council 1841–1853 

message: Was there a maximum number of members of the Legislative Council prescribed by law ? If so, it should be mentioned in the article. 161.24.19.44 (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of members of the Legislative Council

message: Labour came to power in 1935 (see First Labour Government of New Zealand) but Savage said in December 1935 that Labour had no immediate proposals re the council (see The Press of 6 December 1935). How about a para re Labour and the LC? Hugo999 (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to add something; as long as it's properly referenced, it should all be good. Schwede66 02:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legislative Council in 1935
Talk:Michele Angelo Cianciulli

message: What does "settled the bill of law" mean? Does it mean that he wrote the bill, or does it mean that he enacted it, being the appropriate statutory authority? Or maybe it means something else?
As it stands, the phrase is unclear and I don't know how to figure out the real meaning, without sufficient background knowledge of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilys. Any suggestions? Bazuz (talk) 09:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  unclear expression
Talk:New Munster Province

message: This article is a direct copy from this website: http://www.teara.govt.nz/1966/P/Provinces/NewLeinsterNewMunsterAndNewUlster/en  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.36.179.67 (talk) 22:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_New_Zealand/politics#First_three_provinces. Schwede66 00:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent move

message: Folks, this article is decidedly inaccurate, and actually gets the 1841-46 and 1846-53 bounds of New Munster around the wrong way. The 1840 Charter granted the name of New Munster to what we now know as the South Island.  The North Island - the whole island - was to be New Ulster.  If you don't believe me, go check out the leader in the New Zealand Gazette (a Wellington paper), 24 July 1841.  The 1846 Constitution Act gave the Governor the power to include the southern part of the North Island within the province of New Munster, a power which George Grey exercised in early 1848 (just before receipt of the 1848 Suspending Act).  When the New Munster Provincial Council had its solitary sitting, it met in Wellington and represented the area depicted in the map currently labelled as 1841.
Would fix this myself but I'm not exactly active on Wikipedia any more and have no intention of resuming activity at the present. - Axver (talk) 01:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracies
Talk:Arkansas Supreme Court

message: Arkansas has one of the longest lists of missing state supreme court justices. Drafts have been created for the following under Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/United States judges and justices#Arkansas:
Any help getting these finished and moved to mainspace would be appreciated. BD2412 T 18:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drafts for missing Arkansas Supreme Court justices
Talk:Codfish Island / Whenua Hou

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved. Sufficient evidence was provided that the dual name (or at least mentioning both English and Maori names at the same time, or even exclusively the Maori name) is in enough independent use to warrant using this time. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Codfish Island →  – In recent sources, the island is almost exclusively referred to with a dual name in some capacity (be that with an unspaced slash, just a space, hyphenated, comma,parentheses and spaced slash, with the order of the names varying. While this makes any form of meta-analysis even more difficult than usual, it should be clear from the outset that the dual name is frequently used, with each component name also used interchangeably with no clear preference of one over the other. As such, the dual name provides the most opportunity for a reader to find the island they are thinking of, whether they know it as the dual name, Codfish Island, or Whenua Hou. Per WP:NZNC guidelines, we should use the spaced slash format and the order as established in the gazetteer, which is what is proposed in this move. Turnagra (talk) 04:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject New Zealand has been notified of this discussion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:50, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 14 May 2022