lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Secret Treaty of Dover

message: There aren't any in-line cites, and only one reference for this article. Whilst the article seems otherwise alright, it's hard to accept it without them. Adam Cuerden talk 18:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article suffers in its coverage (criterion 3). The topic is too narrowly focussed which is why there wouldn't be too much to say other than the three paragraphs of the first section. The second section is mainly about another topic, the Third Anglo-Dutch War. That article also suffers in the breadth of its coverage. I would suggest both articles be merged and expanded in order to satisfy criterion 3. The merged article can then be renominated to for GA. RelHistBuff 12:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure about the recommendation for merger, but the coverage is definitely lacking. From reading Macaulay, I get the impression that most of the privy council knew there was to be a treaty, but that the more obnoxious clauses were concealed from all but a few. When did details of the secret provisions become known, and what were the political consequences? Choess 03:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Comment

message: The "open" Treaty of Dover was signed and sealed in December 1670.  It had been "negotiated" for England by the Duke of Buckingham, who was surprised by how quickly and smoothly the work went: he didn't know that the treaty had already been negotiated, and that his version was an abridgement, leaving out the parts about King Charles declaring himself a Roman Catholic and reconciling his kingdom to the Church of Rome.  We need to get this into the text, as "Treaty of Dover" redirects here.  I can probably find sources within this month.  As for when the secret treaty became known, I think it was only in the nineteenth century, when someone poking around in dusty archives found it.  That, too, can and should be documented. J S Ayer (talk) 02:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public Treaty 

message: The lede states "The secret treaty was signed by Arlington, Arundell, Clifford and Bellings for England and Colbert de Croissy for France." but none of these individuals are mentioned in the article. I suppose the people involved were Henry Bennet, 1st Earl of Arlington, Richard Arundell, 1st Baron Arundell of Trerice, Thomas Clifford, 1st Baron Clifford of Chudleigh, Richard Bellings (courtier) and Charles Colbert, marquis de Croissy. Tigerboy1966  08:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signatories 

message: Is it known whether the signing was on 1 June O.S. or 1 June N.S.? The treaty was signed in England, which still used the O.S. calendar at that time; France, basing Catholic, would have already switched to N.S.. And, given that it was a notably pro-Roman Catholic agreeement, there's it is reasonable to doubt the assumption of O.S. dates solely on the grounds of it being signed in England.. anyone? Firejuggler86 (talk) 00:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calendar/dates - O.S. or N.S.?
Talk:East Bengali refugees

message: Jibanmanab 08:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: The title should be Bengali Hindu refugees. BengaliHindu (talk) 14:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: East Bengal, as an entity existed as a province in the Dominion of Pakistan only between 1947 and 1956. In 1956, when Pakistan became an Islamic Republic, the East Bengal was renamed to East Pakistan. But the flow of refugees continued from the territory of erstwhile East Bengal, even after 1956, notably in 1964 and 1971 and it continues till date. Therefore the past should be renamed to Bengali Hindu refugees. BengaliHindu (talk) 11:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: During Bangladesh war of independence there were only 2 countries nearby ,Refugees went only to one country is impossible.So I researched it and here is the evident.10 millions went to India and 1 million went to Burma.Letter/telegraph from former British Ambassador to Bangladesh Ambassador. http://www.networkmyanmar.org/images/stories/PDF19/Kaiser-OBrien-23-Dec-1975.pdf
Note: Poor English of Burmese people and poor internet of their country doesn't mean the truth can be hidden.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Htunsanmyat (talk • contribs) 14:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refugee to Burma During Bangladesh war of indepedence 
Talk:Kʼakʼ Tiliw Chan Yopaat

message: Perhaps the page should be renamed as K'ak' Tiliw Chan Yoaat, since this is the actual name of the king according to Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens by Martin & Grube. Cauac Sky was the nickname given before the glyphs could be fully read. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fully support renaming articles on Maya personages like this one to their modernly deciphered names (in ALMG orthography or something close to it), where these are now confirmed. For this one, I would suggest K'ak' Tiliw Chan Yopaat not Yoaat as I understand David Stuart subsequently revised the reading of that element. --cjllw ʘ TALK 13:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Matthew Looper, in Lightning Warrior:Maya Art and Kingship at Quirigua (2003), renders the name as K'ak' Tiliw Chan Yo'pat. Do you know if David Stuart's new reading more recent than this? Simon Burchell (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Stuart's reading is from abt 1999, I believe; Martin & Grube later acknowledge/take up this reading, according to Zender & Skidmore's Mesoweb site (I guess it was made too late to appear in their book). I don't know the basis for yo'pat vs. yopaat; the former might be a more narrow transcription based on some phonetic principle or other. So far we've been using yopaat for others whose name includes this element; for consistency if nothing else perhaps we can continue with that unless it's more clear somewhere that it is out-of-favour. --cjllw ʘ TALK 06:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm now moving this page to K'ak' Tiliw Chan Yopaat since there have been no objections... Simon Burchell (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename page
Talk:Tokyo Dragons

message: Ok, this article has already been once deleted, but I really feel the Tokyo Dragons are a notable band. They're very heard of over here, have toured with some big bands and released a album with good sales. I'm at school now but as soon as I get home I'm going to seek to improve this article. --Mark (Talk | Contribs | Email) 08:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a fan, I've never even heard them really. I just noticed a dead link to the article so I created it. I agree that they are definatly notable- they would have been even if they were just on that programme but they've went on since then--Josquius 16:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I have brought this article up to standard, including proof that they are notable. See WP:MUSIC - having a single in a national singles chart equals notability. I've also been able to research a lot more information than there was before, including single releases and chart places. You are welcome to improve the article if you have anything to add. --Mark (Talk | Contribs | Email) 20:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvements
Talk:Wheeling Central Catholic High School

message: I removed this: "The championships have been a bit controversial though, due to the schools privet enrollment(The WVSSAC doesn't separate public and privet schools.)" because no sources were cited.
MarkMascolino 17:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

message: Just went through and removed a whole bunch of vandalism.  I apologize if I missed any or if any legitimate information was removed.  --Aruton (talk) 20:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 
Talk:Paragroup

message: This page was tagged as needing "a better explanation of technical details".  I have tried to provide them.  If any parts are still unclear, please specifically list them here. — Reinyday, 11:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: technical

message: I think the title of the article breaches the conventions. See: Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Special characters.
I can't understand why this title anyhow. --Sugaar 14:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the correct title should be "paragroup". This is what Karafet et al 2008 use. Wapondaponda (talk) 03:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: I have read somewhere that paraphyletic haplogroups can indicate ancestral haplogroups. And that it's useful in determining ancestral lands (places of origin) of a certain haplogroup. Due to my lack of deep knowledge in the subject, I'm not sure whether this is implied within the technical info in the article, or needs mentioning (if this piece of info is true). --Xevorim (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancestral haplogroup 

message: :Standard scientific notation for paragroups is to use an asterisk after the name for the haplotype. The very conciseness which makes this a very useful standard, reduces its usefulness as a link
:Therefore, currently, there is no standard for both noting a paragroup, and usefully linking to the paragroup article which explains this distinction, without saying, Haplotype paragroup, which in my limited understanding seems to be either a tautology or an oxymoron (I told you it was limited)
:I fear my option may be marginally acceptable, and I was hoping someone with a better knowledge of the subject might either endorse them or have a better idea
:Current status: * The current status. If you missed that, I can't say I am surprised, it is a link shown as * after the colon and before the word, "The" on this line. Paragroups are marked with an asterisk, which is pipe-linked to the redirect page * (haplogroup), creating about 30 or so double redirects
:Option: * paragroup My favorite. Might be better to use the abbreviation, 'para', instead, to save space.
:Option: your idea here. Including haplotype paragroup, if that works
:Anarchangel (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC: Incompatibility between the standard scientific notation for paragroups, and links 

message: Is Parahaplogroup the same as a Paragroup? If so, should that article be merged into this? - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Parahaplogroup]]
Talk:10th Congress of the Philippines

message: Isn't Imelda Marcos the Representative of the 1st District of Leyte during the 10th Congress of the Philippines (1995-1998)? --Glenncando 09:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, she is. Sorry bout not updating the list at once. Scorpion prinz 21:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Imelda Marcos
Talk:John Carver Meadows Frost

message: Can't use this properly on this Android phone, but does anyone have the reference for Frost's time with Westland? Designing the Whirlwind fuselage is a big thing, and not mentioned in any other record I have seen (and I have been researching the Whirlwind design for five years).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.234.213 (talk) 07:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

message: The digression on UFOs seems unnecessarily large. While some is appropiate to ilustrate the cultural background for the Avrocar that which is included seems excessive to me. GraemeLeggett 12:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The first two paras are on-topic, but the rest really doesn't have to do with anything in the article -- much of it postdates it. Maury (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: More than just a superficial revision is needed. This was an early attempt at writing a Wikipedia article and needs an extensive rewrite. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Digressions in text 

message: Nobody graduates with honours in anything from a British school, and they didn't back then. (I'm using school in the British sense, i.e. to describe pre-university education.) Could someone clarify what was intended here?
Notreallydavid (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early life
Talk:Holon (philosophy)

message: "a holon is a historical event that makes other historical events inevitable."
Maybe this falls in to the class holon but this is not what a holon is. As the word holon means part-whole any structure that exhibits a part-whole characteristic falls into the class holon. I think someone should remove the above part from the article.
I might be a good idea to include an example of such a historical event. This wil make the subject more conprehensible (at least it would for me). Sparkie
Corrected Panda's false edit. atoms are lower than molecules since molecules are made up of atoms. - check SES. --82.35.193.80 17:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: * David Boje (2000) Holon and Transorganization Theory   --gybag 14:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Boje 

message: Example
D. Bergandi, P. Blandin (1998), "Holism vs. Reductionism: Do Ecosystem Ecology and Landscape Ecology Clarify the Debate?".  DOI .
--Krauss (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  add explain about Holism vs. Reductionism debate 

message: The caption under the picture of a fractal introduces ideas which are not present elsewhere in the page. It is also rather clumsy in its grammar. I do find sources that refer to a holon as a fractal unit e.g. a small mound of earth which makes up larger hills here and to describe seeds here, but surely these examples should be in the main body of the page if they are significant? Btljs (talk) 09:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fractal picture 

message: W-as-journey (talk) 06:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Respect to original ancient Greek word 'Holon(ὅλον)'
Talk:Zoot Sims

message: Added a sentence pointing out that Sims played on a Jack Kerouac album, this was removed 'for vandalism'. What the hell? Why? That doesn't make sense.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.176.249.232 (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: how did he die? people dont die at the age of 59 for natural causes any more?id like to know as well as everyone else.
69.221.168.185 (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: For cause of death, please see the changes I made today. DutchmanInDisguise (talk) 05:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  cause of death? 

message: I was amazed and dismayed to see how little information there was on Zoot in his article. I have tried to remedy that situation, but fear I've only scratched the surface. DutchmanInDisguise (talk) 06:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Expanding Zoot's biography
Talk:Imperial General Headquarters

message: Pardon my ignorance, but does the "general" in "Imperial General Headquarters" refer to the rank of general or to the generality of the headquarters? Anrie (talk) 08:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry nobody has answered. On the off-chance you ever see this, or somebody is wondering the same thing, I'll take a crack at an answer. You're second guess is pretty mush on the mark. The "generality" of the headquarters, because it developed overall war strategy, coordinated between army and navy, answered to the Emperor, sort of like the U.S. Department of Defense, or whatever analogous government section is in your country.Boneyard90 (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  General as in...?
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Little Brown Hat

message: itsn't the idea of wikepiedia to share knowledge with the world so why delete knowledge from the site? it's true so why withold it from the rest of the world and not share the exsistance of the little brown hat?
deleting it would be stupid and pointless
:Firstly, the place to raise concerns like this is in fact on the "project page" (the "AfD discussion" as we generally call it), rather than here. Secondly, while Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it's not a place to list every single local band in the world. What we're here to document, rather than everything which is "true", is everything which is "notable". In the case of a band, the generally-applied criteria for notability are to be found at WP:BAND. If you want to post on the discussion arguing for the article to stay, those would probably be the points to address. The article as it currently stands talks about the band touring Europe and having a platinum album, which would certainly make them notable if it could be proven accurate. As it stands, there's not a jot of proof that either event took place, which makes at least part of the article somewhat less than "true", which is a lesser standard than notability. If the band passes the relevant criteria, then it can stay - if it passes the relevant criteria after this article is deleted, it can be recreated.
:Deletion, therefore, is not "stupid and pointless". It is, rather, a means of making certain that only notable things are included here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 10:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Pau Grand Prix

message: I was at Pau on Easter Monday 1949
Juan Manuel Fangio  was there with another Argentinian driver named Campos. The French called them "les mangeurs de paille" or "the straw eaters" for the daring way of using all of a corner.
The two magnificently prepared cars were Maserati 4ACTL 1500cc with two stage compressors.
These conformed to the pre-war and still ruling Formula 1: 4500cc aspired or 1500cc supercharged.
The description  in the article is somewhat misleading.
Also Nello Pagani, winner of the two previous editions may have been driving a 1500cc 4actl with single stage compressor. In 1949, after winning the 500cc motorcycle race, with a better time than Fangio on fastest lap, he drove again a factory Maserati 1500cc single stage compressor.
I dined with Nello the same evening.
Please rectify the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.32.228 (talk) 10:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1949

message: I have removed the unsourced claim that the Pau Grand Prix of 1901 was the first motor racing grand prix. A track profile in an Atari video game does not constitute a valid source, especially with the magnitude of claim that was inferred from it. I assume that the Atari marketing department have accidentally conflated the Circuit du Sud-Ouest that was run at Pau on the 17 February 1901, and was won by Maurice Farman driving a Panhard 24 hp.ref ... Grand Prix Winners 1895-1949 by Hans Etzrodt Part 1 1895-1916) Chienlit (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: * I have now clarified the article with separate Notes relating to the 1899 Pau Bayonne Pau event, and the Circuit du Sud-Ouest that was held in both 1900 and 1901. Chienlit (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: 1901

message: Hello everybody,
I worked previously on the "Grand Prix de Pau" French Wikipedia article and I need some help to translate this text from French to English.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Prix_de_Pau
Thanks for Reply  ;-)
--5W (talk) 11:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  need translations 

message: good morning everybody, 
i'm writing only to tell you that in every language there is a big mistake. the race track can not be 2000 kilometers long. I would change it but i dont know how to do it. Please can someone write meters instead of kilometers.
p.s.: for some of you i explain the mistake. the circuit of Monza is 5000 meters or 5 kilometers, because 1000 meters equals to 1 kilometer. For this reason a trip of 2500 kilometers would last more than one day and this has no sense
thanks to everybody
RR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.47.220.14 (talk) 08:23, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello RR. On English Wikipedia, "." = decimal point and "," = thousands separator, so "2.760 km" means "2 and 760/1000 km", not "two thousand, seven hundred and sixty km" - see MOS:DECIMAL and MOS:DIGITS for further information. DH85868993 (talk) 10:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  big mistake
Talk:Yokusan Sonendan

message: There has been persistent addition of "Category:Fascist organizations". I have removed this on the basis that the article text does not describe the subject as a fascist organisation. I am also not able to find a broad consensus in sources to describe the subject using these terms, as required by WP:CATDEF. Discuss. - Ryk72 talk 22:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Article source says that the organization was "based on the model of the Nazi storm troopers". -- 177.158.122.73 (talk) 22:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: But "based on the model of the German Sturmabteilung" is not the same as "fascist organization", and doesn't mean we can categorise this article's subject as such. To do so, we need to show that sources  a "fascist organization", which is the bar set by WP:CATDEF. - Ryk72 talk 20:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories
Talk:Juan Tizol

message: Info box says one thing versus intro paragraph saying another.  Can this is corrected WITH verification?  And by verification, I mean a verifiable source, not another Wikipedia article or some made-up magazine crap Wikipedia 'editors' love using out of laziness? Grammarcop1 (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthdate
Talk:Heraclea

message: It would be suitable to split these definitions. Some wikis already consecrated definitions for each Eracleas. 
----
I also suggest that this page should be split up. Greenshed 22:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: *An article of cities with the same name is not standard Encyclopedia practice. Some of the city articles will have to be stubs until authors come forward, but this is not an unusual Wikipedian circumstance.Dave 03:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Aye

message: *But this works. It would be considerable effort to make this a dab page, and there isn't that much to say on any of these cities. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nay

message: In my experience disambig pages don't have sources. Those are reserved for articles. But, what do I know? I changed nothing, brought the matter up. You decide.Dave (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The sources
Talk:Imperial Japanese Army Academy

message: :The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support as nominator per WP:UE. —  AjaxSmack   06:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: http://books.google.com/books?id=KWHREtBHNqYC&pg=PA313&dq=t'ien+chin+military+academy&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FrVVU-KkNfHUsASC2oGoAw&ved=0CGAQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=t'ien%20chin%20military%20academy&f=false
Rajmaan (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources