lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Category talk:WikiFauna

message: I've looked through all of the Wikipedia Fauna over and over again, and I don't really seem to fit into any of the categories. The way my personality is, sometimes I'm going to be a Dragon, then other times I'm a Gnome, other times an Elf, and perhaps even a Fairy. 
I was wondering if perhaps (with much consideration, naturally) a new fauna could be added, one that describes itself as "maintaining many of the qualities of the Wikipedia fauna at once, or regularly fluctuating between the different qualities" (I was thinking Griffin simply because it embodies different animals, thus showing different kinds of fauna combined).
If I am not mistaken, in a nutshell: Dragons are bold and make large contributions, Fairies make things nicer to look at, Elfs make new articles and work behind the scenes, Slothes make contributions because they enjoy it,  and Gnomes work behind the scenes on grammar and spelling, etc.
Once again, my reason for proposing this is simply because I know that I will almost constantly change fauna qualities, and I doubt I am the only one.
If this is not necessary because of an existing solution, please point this out to me (I am new and while I've looked around the articles, I may have missed something), and I'll quiet down.
Just a proposal. - ApostleJoe
I think that's a wiki platypus, a combo of many wikifauna. Solar flute (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The Shoe Just Doesn't Fit

message: Maybe Wikipedia:WikiOgre ought to be alphabetized under O? —Tamfang (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  order! order! reorder!
Talk:Mesoamerican rubber balls

message: This article was built largely using a section within the Mesoamerican ballgame article.  That article was getting rather large and much of the data within the ==Ball== section was overly detailed for a survey article.  That section is now very much a summary and the detail can be found here.  
FYI, y'all.  Madman (talk) 04:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Talk:List of To Heart series characters

message: Are the characters' star signs relevant? I don't recall them ever being mentioned in the anime or manga. Samatarou (talk) 02:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They're on the Japanese wiki I think. Most likely from the game. Rezumop (talk) 03:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Why list star signs?

message: === Inconsistent Romanization. ===
Takāki or Takaaki.  Neither is right or wrong, but having both in the same article is confusing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.245.102.10 (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, with an additional merge of the separate To Heart and To Heart 2 characters.--十八 03:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: From List of To Heart 2 characters merger

message: Takāki or Takaaki.  Neither is right or wrong, but having both in the same article is confusing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.245.102.10 (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent Romanization. 

message: It says "This unit is only mentioned in the game" but isn't Milfa Kuma-kichi in the game? And I believe one of the CGs has Sango on the computer with Kuma-kichi on the side, and Takaaki has interactions with Kuma-kichi, so I it's not really correct to say she's only "mentioned." After all, a great part of ToHeart2: Another Days has to do with Milfa falling in love with Takaaki from the short time they were together in the first ToHeart2. And also, MX-17b Milfa = Harumi (Kono) should that be mentioned? Or is would that be considered a spoiler? Takaaki's a bit slow, so he doesn't realize, but it's kind of obvious from the beginning that Milfa = Harumi. --Atlasia (talk) 11:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milfa's Appearance 

message: To Heart 2: Another Days has a list of characters in that game. Given TH2:AD is certainly in the same universe as TH2, I think someone should merge the character section of that article into here.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 01:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, with an additional merge of the separate To Heart and To Heart 2 characters.--十八 03:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This and [[To Heart 2: Another Days]]
Talk:Derek Yu

message: Should the ad top tag be removed? I rewrote the page to make it less adversarial. I don't actually know what constitutes a page that's an ad from one that's simply well-balanced and includes controversy. Yu doesn't seem to be involved in much controversy, should I add some to make the page seem less advertisement-like, however? Or, rather, does anything need to be done to accomplish the goal of no ad tag because the page really isn't anymore? Fleetham (talk)
:Possibly mention the controversy around I'm O.K., though its own article covers that pretty well. This is far from a great article (through no fault of your own), but the ad tag could probably be removed. 143.92.1.32 (talk) 01:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  ad tag
Talk:David Faber (author)

message: I added the "stub" and "Unreferenced" tags to this article. I feel that it is woefully underdeveloped in contrast to the importance of its subject. I wasn't completely sure if both "stub" and "unreferenced" should go on the same article, but I went for it none-the-less.
Stub: Two paragraphs, essentially repeating one another.
Unreferenced: There is a link to the website for Mr. Farber's autobiography, but it is not a citation, and there are no inline citations regarding that website. Archfourtytwo (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added "STUB" and "UNREFERENCED" Tags 

message: This article has been reverted by a bot to  as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that 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. VWBot (talk) 14:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem
Talk:European Nuclear Disarmament

message: Representing War Resisters' International, I attended most END Convention Liaison Committees from 1985 to the end, and all the Conventions from 1985 onwards. This history of them is really inadequate and does not reflect the changing character of the Convention and its adaptation to new networks.
In particular, it does not recognise that - while Ken Fleet of the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation - continued as minutes-taker, the Committee became ever less centred on BRPF.  Indeed, by 1985, Ken Coates himself was participating in the Conventions but not normally in the Liaison Committee.  Ken Fleet of BRPF continued to take the minutes, but from Britain both END and CND played a major role in organising Conventions. Each year a national host committee put major resources into organising the Conventions, but the individuals who played a particularly significant role in providing continuity were Ken Fleet, Sylvie Mantrand (originally from CODENE Paris, but later secretary of the Liaison Committee), John Lambert (working in the Green Alternative Link of the European Parliament) and Jan Turf of the Belgian CNAPD.   In terms of British involvement, there were regularly representatives from both CND and END at the Liaison Committee, as well as the Green Party.  
I will do some revision of this page later.  But for now, this is to register my opinion. 
Howard Clark (talk) 10:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  END Convention 
Talk:Corf

message: --CopyToWiktionaryBot (talk) 04:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007-12-20 Automated pywikipediabot message 

message: I have expanded this page. In my opinion, it is justified as an article. /Yvwv (talk) 12:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Page expanded

message: "Corf or corve"? Really? --80.222.116.28 (talk) 16:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page title
Talk:Luis Piedrahita

message: In September of 2008 he had his vesicle removed and auction it in The Anteater and donated the profits to the children affected by the syndrome of West (a childish illness that affects babies between 0 and 12 months of age and causes epileptic attacks).
This looks suspicious to me.  Which kind of "vesicle" is it?  And there's no reference given.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.9.112.31 (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this true?
Talk:College entrance exam

message: I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, and wasn't sure if this page was needed.  I saw a red link to it on a page somewhere, and decided to fill it in with what information I know.  If it turns out that this link is redundant, please re-direct "college entrance exam" to the appropriate address.  Uomo E Le Rovine (talk) 04:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Brainoil

message: speedy deletion flag being tripped on this
"indicate the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7)"
The History and Discography section cover this requirement.
Please explain further why it does not?
Nahthan666 (talk) 04:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing there that qualifies them as notable under :WP:BAND, as I read it. --Orange Mike  | Talk 04:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Pablo de Olavide

message: "he returned to religious observance and even wrote an apology of Christianism"
I'm pretty sure the use of this term is erroneous... The context of the word seems to indicate that he was writing a straightforward Christian apologetic. In Spanish, the word for Christianity is "Cristianismo," which is probably the origin of this translation mistake. I'm going to change it to "Christianity."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkotukka (talk • contribs) 14:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "Christianism"
Talk:Kenilworth Park and Aquatic Gardens

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#:: 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#:: 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#:: 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:Fair representation without bias: 
#:: 
#It is stable.
#:No edit wars etc.: 
#:: 
#It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
#:a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
#:: 
#Overall: 
#:Pass/Fail: 
#:: </div>
I've failed this article for lack of broad and focused coverage. As a start, there could be more detailed coverage of the biology, four sentences don't begin to do that justice. The history, you might try looking at the Arcadia Publishing titles that surely exist for the area, if they can do them for my miniscule small town, they must have some for the Washington DC area. Check local history websites for more information on the history. Lastly, the "Park today" section, at the very least give a longer description of the recreational facilities. Does the local Audubon society do a bird count there? What presidents visited the area? What does a Category II Landmark mean, why was it named that? Use the National Register of Historic Places angle to fill out more details.
If you disagree, you are welcome to take the article to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. Ealdgyth | Talk 02:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA review
Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom by GVA per capita

message: The source here is now almost three years out of date, and it was not a particularly sophisticated survey to last for the long-term.  Living in Britain, I would very much doubt that the South-West is in the top half.  I would suggest either updating this article with a more recent survey or deleting the page. 86.137.179.210 (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure the South West has far less deprivation than the areas in the North. Where would you expect it to be? Certainly the western areas of the South West are relatively propserous (i.e. excluding Cornwall), for example Bath, Bristol, Portsmouth and so on. As for them being out of date, find some more recent ones and feel free to update the table! The Regions of England templates definately need some sort of economic value, so this will have to do until a suitable replacement can be found. Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Goodness knows who thought it a good idea to use 2002 Eurostat data which had been converted back into pounds at some contrived exchange rate. Meiktila (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Out of date?

message: I've not got a background in economics, but why isn't this article called Countries of the United Kingdom by GVA per capita? The article seems to be a summary of quite a detailed ONS report, but this report uses Gross value added instead of Gross domestic product. I'm not looking for an explanation of both, unless somebody can prove to me there's absolutely no difference. Of course, if there's no difference, why does Wikipedia have both as separate articles?--ML5 (talk) 20:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: GDP or GVA?
Talk:Steers (restaurant)

message: the burgers are really good  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.229.222.187 (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: obviously SithembileK2012 (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: burgers

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. (closed by non-admin page mover) The Night Watch (talk) 14:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 30 December 2022 

message: Cf. Talk:Steers#followup to move --Joy (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  followup to move
Talk:Southdown, Harpenden

message: I think the list of things in Southdown is of little notability and is more of something to be on the page. I have formatted it to be more obviously a list, whereas it was somewhat disguised as prose. However, unless there are any arguments against removal, I shall delete the list. Gmfreak (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: List

message: As the article has no notability and little verifiability (The Google Test offers nothing of any notability either), I suggest this article, in accordance with WP:ITEXISTS, be changed to a redirect to Harpenden.Gmfreak (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack of content

message: I have changed my mind and decided to be bold and redirect; anyone who thinks this should not be the case, please revert the redirect, and state your reasoning here. Thank you. Gmfreak (talk) 17:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect
Talk:MS München

message: Am I reading the article correctly? The wreck's actual location is unknown? --Ragemanchoo (talk) 05:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, officially the location of sinking seems to be unknown (maybe due to improper communications about her poition), as well as the wreck's  location. There are but rumors concerning a picture of a mititary satellite - not very appropriate for the article. -- Wasabi (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wreck location unknown?

message: i was on the Raf Nimrod that was searching for her, we flew to and operated out of us naval base lajes on the azores for 4 days  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.240.131 (talk) 13:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  raf sar 

message: Within the Investigation section, the passage "Whilst ploughing through the storm..." onwards is surely pure speculation? -- Pollykisveny (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculation? 

message: "The exceptional flotation capabilities of the LASH carriers meant that she was widely regarded as being practically unsinkable." Is there some list of ships that are considered unsinkable or practically unsinkable now? Because I don't ever want to set foot on these vessels!
Seriously though, are ships often considered unsinkable and only after they've sunken is this a factoid that becomes interesting or has nobody been so bold as to call a ship unsinkable after this went so horribly wrong with the Titanic but it's made up nonetheless after the fact because it's such a nice story to see unsinkable ships sink? I mean after all there are probably few ships built today for which the engineers say "Oh yeah, it floats ... for now but better don't get into some kind of heavy wheather." --Mudd1 (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsinkable 

message: Both sisterships BILDERDIJK and MÜNCHEN were built by the shipyard Cockerill Yards in Hoboken (near Antwerp) in Belgium. BILDERDIJK as yard no. 859, MÜNCHEN as yard no. 860. After bankruptcy of Cockerill Yards in 1982, the yard was taken over by Boelwerf from Temse. So BILDERDYK was not built by Boelwerf. Cockerill-Sambre, mentioned as builder of the MÜNCHEN, was not the shipyard, but was a steel factory in Liège (Belgium). Source: I worked in Cockerill Yards at that time. Paul Zwysen81.11.200.135 (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  builder
Talk:Zaida of Seville

message: The death dates given by Cawley are those for Queen Isabella, found on the memorial stone that calls her daughter of King Luis of France.  They can only be those of Zaida if 1) Zaida is identical to Queen Isabella, and 2) the memorial stone is dead wrong about her parentage, but spot-on regarding her death date. Neither of these represents scholarly consensus. An alternative viewpoint placed her death in about 1093. Agricolae (talk) 04:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Death dates

message: If she was perhaps married to Alfonso the Brave, she would probably take the titles of Queen of Castile, Leon, Galicia, Portugal and Empress of Spain. The only scenario's she would not have the title is if she never married Alfonso, and stayed his mistress, or if the marriage was merely morganatic, or if Alfonso never gave Zaida the title of Queen Consort, due to the fact she was previously a Muslim, and according to most churches in the middle ages when it goes to marriage, "Once a Muslim, always a Muslim"Signed,  (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This is all predicated on anachronistic practice.  There was no such thing as morganatic marriage at this time and place, nor of the woman the king married 'taking titles' or being awarded a formal title of Queen Consort by the monarch.  With the exception of Alfonso's daughter who was queen regnant in her own right, the queen was simply the woman married to the king.  It is a simple question that the historical record does not allow to be unambiguously answered. Is the documented mistress of Alfonso, Zaida (baptized as Isabel), the same woman who shows up in later documents as Alfonso's wife Isabel.  If they were the same, then Zaida was that queen.  If they were different then Zaida was not queen. Agricolae (talk) 01:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

text: It is unwise to compare queenship under Henry VIII with that under Alfonso VI more than 400 years earlier under entirely different circumstances, but this is all predicated on the wrong question. The uncertainty is not over whether the woman married to Alfonso received a formal title from either the monarch or the pope. We don't know whether Zaida was queen for the simple reason that we don't know if Alfonso ever married her, whether the Isabel who married Alfonso in 1100 was the same woman as the royal mistress Isabel, formerly named Zaida, by whom he had a child almost a decade earlier. The question of the awarding of a formal title is moot if they never married. Agricolae (talk) 20:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queen of Castile?
Talk:Toxicology testing

message: This Stub starts a discussion of one aspect of toxicology testing.  Of course there are many chemical tests and human tests that are also part of the large field of toxicology.  With the present content limited to animal testing, this article should be merged with Animal testing.  Rlsheehan (talk) 14:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point. I still wouldn't merge these two articles. Toxicology testing can involve animals (but as you mention, doesn't have to); just as animal testing can involve toxicants. The two do overlap, but imo this page should be merged with Toxicology. --Etrielle (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose merging this article with anything. We require an article that deals with this specific subject. The fact that it's a stub is irrelevant to its inclusion.   — C M B J   06:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge 

message: — Assignment last updated by Ash.cobbler (talk) 15:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Toxicology
Talk:Malva pudding

message: In December of which year?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.0.156.10 (talk) 14:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  December of which year? 

message: Some articles seem to have gotten their information here, so citations for the "served with wine" theory should be before it showed up in this article (Aug. 30, 2007).  Likewise for the "woman named Malva" theory (April 6, 2007). —JerryFriedman  (Talk) 03:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: Malva pudding is purportedly also called Jan Ellis pudding but the citation in evidence of this goes to a now defunct blog. 
I am not a Wikipedian but I would recommend removing the fun-fact unless evidence can be provided for the alternative name 70.115.151.233 (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jan Ellis Pudding
Talk:Heroes for Sale (film)

message: It looks like it was lifted verbatim from another source.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.147.242.37 (talk) 18:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It does sound awfully dramatic. Looks like the expansion was made here; it built off the two paragraphs that existed before, so I don't think it is plagiarism. The tone could definitely be improved to be more straightforward and less interpretative. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where did this synopsis come from ?
Talk:Breast cancer research stamp

message: Is a direct lift from http://obf.cancer.gov/contribute/cr-stamp.htm . Its of uncertain copyright status: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/NCI/copyright says that reproduction is ok; extraction of copyright-protected information needs permission. While I guess what was copied is a work of the National Cancer Institute, and that being a .gov website makes it safe to assume that it's a US government work, I am still removing it.
118.90.27.251 (talk) 04:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad. It seems that the contributor does indeed own the copyright of the text contributed; apologies. 118.90.27.251 (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Potential copyvio: edit 228653087 of 18:41, 29 July 2008
Talk:VMF-441

message: G'day, good work with this article so far. I don't think that it would need much more work to be assessed as B class. It probably only needs one more citation (where I've marked with the "citation needed" tag) and the addition of a short paragraph or even a sentence on its service after the war. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion