lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Ancillary revenue

message: As it stands at the moment, the article is seriously distant from neutrality; instead, it reads more like an essay arguing that the Ryanair way is the future of commercial aviation. Needless to say, this is a controversial approach that needs balance and citations. Vectro (talk) 05:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As it stands, none of the problems that Vectro has mentioned appear to have been addressed. 182.239.139.158 (talk) 08:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I think "ancillary revenue" is probably a fairly widely-used term in business accounting. It's not just for airlines.  In fact I came to this page as I was trying to better understand the use of the term in the accounts of a university.  In their usage it refers to revenues from residence fees, and perhaps other non-academic things. See "Financial Statements of Saint Thomas University" (2017), accessible from this webpage: http://w3.stu.ca/stu/administrative/vp_financial/financial_statements -- Communpedia Tribal (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Not just airlines

message: Latin derivation of ancillary: "from Latin ancillaris concerning maidservants, from ancilla, diminutive of ancula female servant" http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-definition/ancillary%20expenses -- Communpedia Tribal (talk) 00:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Oh-oh, it's also sexist
Talk:List of United States Navy ships present at Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941

message: I relied mostly on the above US navy list, the DANFS articles and the After action reports, but NavSource.org has more information. This map was a big help in visualizing where the ships were, but I did find a couple errors. (Number of ships at position 1 and 2 / middle loch area, but I don't remember which was wrong) This list includes smaller ships that the USN list excluded and I also excluded in the lead sentence. It includes the PT-boats and yard craft as well as the USCG cutters in Honolulu. --Dual Freq (talk) 05:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other resources

message: Unless I am having a brain fart wasn't the USS Utah at Pearl Harbor during the attack, sunk and is now a memorial? Sheppey Red (talk) 09:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't the USS Utah be on the list?
Talk:Historiated initial

message: Why is this listed under "See also"? Is the Tree of Jesse an especially common subject for historiated initials? Kafka Liz (talk) 23:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. See the article. Johnbod (talk) 02:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, I suppose. I've seen historiated initials on nearly every Christian theme I can think of, though; which made me wonder. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tree of Jesse
Talk:Akayla

message: Shahid • Talk2me 12:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review 
Talk:Hideyuki Ohashi

message: Akira Kouchiyama
I think that the first edition of this is the translation from the Japanese version. However, this article has no information about the inheritance of the page history from that. Therefore, I strongly suspect that this is a GFDL violation. Moreover the Japanese version hadn't specified any source, and hasn't been a reliable information. Almost all the articles created by this user seem to have a same GFDL problem. Thanks. --Akira Kouchiyama 18:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly copyvio
Talk:Wolfgang Assbrock

message: You know, I find it very hard to accept the proposition that us of the eszett is an absolute rule that must be forced upon English-speaking Wikipedians, when so many German sources do not consider it necessary.  This man's name, in German, I will accept, was Aßbrock.  But "ß" is not English, and the "ß" is not always used in this man's name, even on German websites.    .  Heck, he even had an email address that used the "ss" spelling..
So if they can use "ss" in German, we sure as heck can use it in English.  I'm moving this to Assbrock, per WP:UE. Unschool (talk) 09:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree in this case at least. All the English-language sources I've found spell his name "Assbrock" (there aren't a ton since he wasn't particularly famous, but there are a handful of scattered news reports archived in Lexis-Nexis). --Delirium (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:UE
Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 9

message: Please leave the notice, there was an spa post.  Mercury 00:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, then remove it. There's no need for a boilerplate notice for just one SPA. Sean William  @ 00:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: One spa post is no problem, and a tag'll not stop 'em anyway. That particlar lump of horror is only useful if a forum/gamesite/whatever has mandated its members to come here and ballot stuff. It's not useful, and really just adds clutter to a debate where near everybody is here meaningfully. It has no effect whatever on people who would misuse accounts in the way you describe. Splash - tk 00:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is, but if more than one person wants it removed, I'll leave it removed. Mercury 00:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afdanons 

message: *Note: the editor who started the last AFD (User:Durova) claims to have done this at Angela's request; however, Angela denies having made this request. Confusing, no? >Radiant< 11:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, I've restored the discussion back to DRV project page.  Please do not move it again. Mercury 11:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved

message: We've now has on the Angela DRV 4 attempts at closers by involved or otherwise problematic admins. Can we please have who ever closes Brandt be completely uninvolved, possibly a regular DRV closer? JoshuaZ (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Xoloz has closed it. And whilst the decision is regrettable - I respect it as valid, indeed inevitable. The matter rests (for now)--Docg 14:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 18#Daniel Brandt. People were mislead about what happened here. -- Ned Scott 12:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: For those that might still have this watchlisted and be interested in either clarifying their views or giving new ones, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 24. -- Ned Scott 06:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brandt DRV
Talk:Pakuranga College

message: Goldfinger820 removed the list of principals from the article. I believe that the list constitutes an important part of the school's history and I would like to ask whether there is a firm reason for its removal? If so, please post. Otherwise, I will reinstate the list. 219.89.72.39 (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: List of principals

message: As a past student, I do recall being told (more than once) that the schools "tutor group system" where all forms are mixed was first used at Pakuranga College. Does anyone have any information on that? I will try and find some information and add it to the article. Skippy (talk) 03:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: House/Tutor group system
Talk:Give Yourself Goosebumps

message: I personally don't think we should merge all seperate GYG books into one artlice.  They should be given their own page.  I realize that some of them aren't that detailed yet, but hiding from the problem isn't good for an encyclopedia, It would also be difficult to gain information about them if they became just lists. MJN SEIFER (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:Goosebumps (Original series). d'oh! talk 00:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would recommend visiting the discussion D'oh has pointed to above, but for the sake of expediency, I will also state the central point here. The problem with the articles about individual Goosebumps books is that none of the books are sufficiently individually notable to justify their own articles. The issue is not the quality of the articles but the notability of their subjects. The encyclopedia is much better served by containing the information about these books in lists. Neelix (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge Debate

message: Can I link to the following as an "External Link" or would it be classed as OR http://mjnseifer.livejournal.com/  It's related to the topic.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJN SEIFER (talk • contribs) 21:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this allowed? 

message: Hmmmm, why are all the other Give Yourself Goosebumps articles merged into one big article? In my opinion, maybe the book articles should be brought back so we can learn more about all these books. Edward Roussac (talk) 03:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: GYG Pages

message: Would it be ok to add the special edition books to 'List of Give Yourself Goosebumps books'
Here are the 8 missing books and info on them:
https://goosebumps.fandom.com/wiki/Category:Give_Yourself_Goosebumps_Special_Edition
2A00:23C5:DC8D:F00:38E0:CCB6:340B:973A (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a list of the special edition books? 

message: In the list of GYG books, i recommend replacing "the reader" with "you". It gets tiring saying "the reader" all the time (i strongly believe in concision; lately i hav edited a number of Wikipedia articles for concision), and the term "you" is in line with what the books say, and it can be briefly explained that "you" means the reader. This idea is compatible with NPOV because it is understood what "you" means; and we are simply describing the books, not e.g. taking a position on them. Okay?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 13:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  You 

message: I want him yea har full details . 223.233.42.48 (talk) 11:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Show show which on is dead
Talk:Jennifer Davidson (executive)

message: WikiProject Biography Assessment Drives
Want to help write or improve biographies? Check out WikiProject Biography Tips for writing better articles. -- Yamara 20:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 
Talk:Lubricity

message: Case briefly presented; Reference might need checking and Wikifying if found non-standard. I shall look into it if no one else does. LouisBB (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the revised title of this section see article  LouisBB (talk) 06:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The case of the high speed diesel fuel injection pump
Talk:Michael Kahn (theatre director)

message: All material added on June 5, 2013 was copied from [], the Shakespeare Theatre bio on Kahn. I have removed that material, per WP:COPY.Flami72 (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Copy violation

message: Using Kahn's bio from the Shakespearetheatre.org for starters, this article should be expanded to mention more of Kahn's regional theatre and opera productions and other experience. Of course, material cannot simply be copied over, but the facts can be presented in our own words, with appropriate citations to the bio. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - any volunteers ;) ed  Ecragg (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a few operas and another regional theatre, that's all I'll be able to do on this for a while.Flami72 (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Further expansion

message: For the 1986 Regional Theatre Award: The ibdb shows that the American Shakespeare Festival (Michael Kahn, Artistic Director) was a winner in 1986 for Regional Theatre. (here:[], click on Awards). However, the infoplease list shows that the American Repertory Theatre (ART) won the Tony in 1986 for "Special Award", no Regional Award listed (here: ). I am not able to access the Tony Award site on this old computer, so I leave it to others to look at that site; however, I suspect that the ibdb may be incorrect.Flami72 (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Another source, playbill, shows the ART as 1986 winner, here .Flami72 (talk) 14:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Tony Award, a mystery
Talk:CT pulmonary angiogram

message: The contents of this page as of 2007-12-09 have been incorporated into Computed tomography.  Perhaps this page should be changed to a redirect to that page?Enquire (talk) 00:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

message: doi: 10.1007/s00330-015-3679-2 is from 2015. JFW | T@lk 13:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  More recent review
Talk:Britcar

message: The section on Silverstone Britcar 24-Hour, which consist solely of "see Silverstone Britcar 24-Hour", should be rewritten to give some context on why to see it.  RJFJR (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:The Fresh Prince

message: The Fresh Prince, before I edited it, forewarded to "The Fresh Prince of Bellaire".  That TV show was named the preceding because it starred music artist Will Smith, aka "The Fresh Prince".  Therefore, it makes more sence to autoforeward fresh prince to the person the fresh prince (Will Smith) than to the TV show named after him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virsingh  (talk • contribs) 01:17, 10 December 2007‎
:I agree. I redirected this page to Will Smith too but it was reverted. I put the redirect template redirecting "The Fresh Prince" in the Will Smith page. --Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 01:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Fresh Prince is Will Smith
Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Anonymous page creation

message: It is evident that there is no consensus for this change to happen, and traffic to this page is slowing. Are there plans to close this soon? --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no consensus to disable anonymous page creation either. This experiment has to end regardless of consensus because it is so much against the spirit of Wikipedia.  Grue  14:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Closing
Talk:Leptotyphlops

message: It may seem fun to keep up with the popular press, but just remember that as newly described species, Leptotyphlops breuili and L. carlae are not yet considered valid according to the taxonomy (ITIS) that is followed in this series of articles. That's because, although these name may be valid according to the ICZN, it usually takes a while before a consensus develops among the experts in this field. That's why I've mentioned L. carlae only in the Taxonomy section of this article. Eventually, they may or may not decide to recognize these new species. If they don't, then these names will be synonymized with one or more other valid species, e.g. with L. bilineatus, and we will find ourselves merging away our articles for L. breuili and L. carlae. --Jwinius (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding newly described species
Talk:Corfiot Italians

message: Especially, but not only, in the section Language there's a good bit of confusion ragarding the language used. Venetian is one of the plethora of languages of Italy, but it is most definitely not what non-expert readers will understand as (the) Italian language. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language - Confused and confusing
Talk:Miska, Tulkarm

message: would be interesting to see the reaction to this, both then and now.  also how both side see the event, i predict some big difference of opinion of this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.149.183 (talk) 01:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  what this needs 

message: Just now, the article say that the Israeli settlements of  Ein HaHoresh, Givat Haim and  Ahituv are on village land. I see this is taken from http://www.palestineremembered.com/Tulkarm/Miska/
BUT: Khalidi writes something completely different! Namely, that Sde Warburg and  Mishmeret are on village land. This from ILA also indicate that it is Khalidi who has got it right, as they refer to a complaint from  Mishmeret. 
In short: I suspect Palestineremembered really messed this one up, so I will change it to what Khalidi writes. Regards, Huldra (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: it seems as if the Pal.rem-site mixed up Miska with Al-Manshiyya, Tulkarm; they have the exact same info about Israeli  settlements in both places. According to Khalidi; Pal.rem. is right about Al-Manshiyya, Tulkarm, and wrong about Miska. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 11:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  settlements: wrong info on Palestineremembered-site.
Talk:The Land of Far-Beyond

message: The Land of Far Beyond →  – see photo 1st ed and usage within article. Spicemix (talk) 08:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: . Jafeluv (talk) 05:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Jafeluv! Spicemix (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move
Talk:List of Ron Paul 2008 presidential endorsements

message: Is this really notable? Do we really need an article for this> I don't know who half of these people are. On top of that, the guy ha only one congressional endorsement and gets less than 1% of the vote in every major non-internet poll. If you want to keep the same information, a category of "Ron Paul supporters" (then tagging each relevant article) would make more sense than an article which is so redundant and uninformative. 69.138.16.202 (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your last statement. Do you want to merge it back, then? 69.138.16.202 (talk) 02:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not notable
Talk:Windows XP service packs

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support, and as the creator and currently only other editor of this page, I'm going to be WP:BOLD. -- KelleyCook (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Discussion on the proposal to remove service pack information from Windows XP to Windows XP service packs is being conducted at Talk:Windows XP which is a more appropriate location for this discussion since it involves significantly altering the Windows XP article. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that the discussion at Talk:Windows XP has been closed with the dicision not to merge into this article, we should merge this article back into Windows XP. There's no reason to list this information twice. - Josh (talk | contribs) 07:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Support - As can be seen already, duplication of information in two articles has resulted in significant differences between the two, particularly as relates to SP3. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further to the above, I've made appropriate edits to Windows XP that incorporated some information contained in this article that should have been included in that one. I've also made an edit to this article that I've marked as a "snapshot edit". Only edits made after that need be considered for merging into Windows XP in the event that this proposal is successful. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Why Thank you Mr. Aussie Legend.  I'm glad that you did the appropriate edits. -- KelleyCook (talk) 05:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Support - No need to duplicate. Merge back to Windows XP, ASAP. --BWCNY (talk) 07:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Discussion on this proposal was suppose to occur at Talk:Windows XP according to the  tag so I'm going to copy the discussion so far to there. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: This article and [[Windows XP]]
Talk:RAF Bury St Edmunds

message: I have noticed that the main overhead photograph on the top right hand side of the article has been uploaded upside down. Is there any way this can be turned around 180degrees ?
IDMLutra (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main photograph 
Talk:Aytaç Özkul

message: This page should not be speedily deleted because... This basketball player doesn't play professional basketball anymore --ezequiel (talk) 21:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested deletion 
Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Belarus

message: * Personal opinion: I appreciate your effort for editing the article of Belarus in general.  However, given the nature of the low rate of search for this specific article (i.e. the rate of click) in public, it is pointless to have whatever kinds of rate in its quality.  If you understand this critical point, you won't care too much.  For me of course I am not interested in knowing this topic and any other details of such rogue nation.  Personally and honestly speaking, I don't think this article has been reached an FA standard after comparing other articles like Canada, India and Australia.  On the other hands I do repsect the nominator and other voters here. Coloane (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *It is FA standard if it fulfills the FA criteria; number of "hits" for the page has absolutely nothing to do with it.  María (habla conmigo) 02:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: **Yeah, that is exactly what I mean.  From what you said, it is also OK to say in an oposite way that it is nothing to do with whatever kind of rates; same logic, isn't it?  PLUS, of course it is an FA standard if it fulfills the FA criteria.  However, based on no reliable qualification (no PhD degree in related field) and work experience (no editorial experience) from voter(s), I have my own reservation in this case.  Encyclopedia needs "authority", without this, it is worthless.  That is why "knol" from Google doesn't allow anymore free edition or votes from public.  Coloane (talk) 02:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I have no idea what you mean by "rates."  You mentioned page hits as a criteria to judge articles, and I refuted it because it is nonsense.  What I meant to say is that the only way you can judge any FAC is to look at it in terms of the FA criteria; any other so-called standard is superfluous and off topic.  If you have an opinion about Wikipedia processes, which it seems you do, then it may be best to bring it up elsewhere that is more suitable, like the village pump.  This page is for discussion about whether or not the Belarus article fulfills FA criteria and should therefore be categorized as a Featured Article.  María (habla conmigo) 03:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Excuse me, you didn't read it carefully. I didn't mention the number of hits as a criteria to judge articles.  I say it doesn't matter at all to rate the article as it is nothing to do with the popularity of article. Why do you feel that sensitive?  I prefer those who vote this article should be a related specialist.  In this way, it can build up more confidence in public.  I am not interested in discussing esp with you the Wiki process here and I do know about village pump. Coloane (talk) 03:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I kindly ask the both of you to continue the discussion on the talk page of this FAC. I will move the comments now. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments
Talk:Fort Nossa Senhora da Conceição

message: I think the name of the article is too general. The article talks about the a portuguese castle in an Iranian Island and the name of this article is "Portuguese Castle". I think it should be changed. UAEPrivate (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed! The Ogre (talk) 10:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. The Ogre (talk) 10:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name not suitable 