lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Ooops

message: 12:44, 3 April 2006 Curps (Talk | contribs) deleted "Oops" ? (content was: '#REDIRECT Oops, sorry, page unavailable' (and the only contributor was 'Ojwang') )
12:44, 3 April 2006 Curps (Talk | contribs) deleted "Oops" ? (content was: '#REDIRECT  Oops, sorry, page unavailable' (and the only contributor was 'Ojwang' ) )
Thank You,
 hopiakuta  Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message.  %7e%7e   Thank You. - 03:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I am creating a different page than:

message:  hopiakuta  Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message.  %7e%7e   Thank You. - 04:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: You have not provided any logic regarding your deletion.  how is this different from all other wiktionary redirects?  Delete one is the same as delete all.

message:  hopiakuta  Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message.  %7e%7e   Thank You. - 04:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Provide a rationale, or you are merely an intoxicated vandal.

message: Type your message in the message box, not the heading box. Second, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. See WP:DICDEF. Articles consisting solely of redirects to Wiktionary are subject to speedy deletion, per the speedy deletion guidelines. (See WP:CSD.) --Bfigura (talk) 04:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thirdly --  No personal attacks. Repeated personal attacks will lead to you being banned from editing. Thank you. --Bfigura (talk) 04:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Please read WP:CSD. Articles consisting solely of an external link should be deleted. Note the word external. Wikipedia redirects are internal. There's an important difference. --Bfigura (talk) 05:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First of all

message: There.  That's just one of the many redirects that must immediately disappear.
 hopiakuta  Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message.  %7e%7e   Thank You. - 05:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[ fuckwit ]] 

message:  hopiakuta  Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message.  %7e%7e   Thank You. - 04:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[ category_talk:redirects_to_Wiktionary ]]
Talk:White American Culture

message: This page must be deleted because the writer doesn't understand the difference between culture, race and racial prejudice. The reason the word culture does not relate to race is because there would have to be someone to dictate to their race what their culture is or is not without the opinion of the entire race(eliminating individuality); in other words if someone of a certain race created a genre of music and even though everyone of the same race (of the person that started the genre) hated this genre they would still be associated by this genre racially.
This is a form of racial segregation as well, which is racism and will not be tolerated on the Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by  Mark667  (talk • contribs)  03:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This Page Must Be Deleted

message: Why should it be deleted?  There is a page pertaining to "African American culture".  So, why shouldn't there be one about "White Americans"?  Go put a tag in for deletion on the "African American culture", and I'll put one in on here.  Iamanadam (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Why?
Talk:Steve Foster (singer)

message: After seeing the earlier edit concerning Steve's death, I first looked up the death notices in the local press, but couldn't find one. However I knew him personally, and I've just spoken with his partner (Jenny) who told me that he passed away on Thursday, 25 January 2018, at St Andrew's Hospital in Adelaide. No public announcement has yet been made due to the need to contact other family members first. Bahudhara (talk) 06:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:   Hello, I am sorry for your loss. Unfortunately, Wikipedia needs a reliable source, as laid out in WP:RS before posting that he died. I think I misunderstood your comment. You are telling people not to post until a reliable source is posted right? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 06:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Having confirmed it by personal contact, others may reinstate it, but it would need a 'citation needed' tag. Bahudhara (talk) 07:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: His death has now been announced on the News/Gig guide page of his website, and details for a public celebration of his life at the Gov on 13 February have been published. Bahudhara (talk) 02:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:   I added it to the article. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Death
Talk:Oil noodles

message: After doing some search I know for sure pancit is in the tagalog language.  Would this also suggest lutong probably doesn't mean lutong, as in the place "lutong" in Malaysia.  It probably means something in tagalog too.  Benjwong 03:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tagalog name

message: Is the English name "oil noodles" really the most commonly used name for this item? For example, lo mein or shaomai use the Chinese name. Badagnani (talk) 23:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: The sodium benzoate perservative mentioned in the article implies industrial preparation. It would seem to me that "traditional" oil noodles would be made of just wheat, egg, water, salt and (of course) oil. The oil noodles I got at my local Chinese supermarket yesterday have a different composition from those mentioned in the article. (Still, best stir fry ever... finally got the same texture of noodles that my local Chinese takeaway serves). The ones I got contained Wheat flour, egg, coconut oil, salt, water, potassium carbonate (an alkaline) and food colour (e110 - sunset yellow). No sodium benzoate (a preservative).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.89.17 (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Composition
Talk:Zoot (band)

message: I intend making major edits over the next week: hopefully to get this article up to B-class. Interim edits may look disorganised or unfinished.shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 06:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 02:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed major edits

message: Recommend merge - due to lack of verifiable citations, content and specific ties to music group. TRL (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep: I've had a go at providing references. His rock music career was brief and is now supported by further references. Under his full name his subsequent classical music career is now included in the article, with references, and has little to do with Zoot. According to Elysium Ensemble's official website he was a member (see here) but I have not included this as its not an independent source.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

text: It's now more than three weeks since I've improved the article and proposed that it not be moved. There are no other interested editors. Can you provide your current thoughts on this matter?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Roger Hicks (rock musician)]] into [[Zoot (band)]]
Talk:Graeham Goble

message: There's nothing about when and why Graham became Graeham.  --  Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 04:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Name change?

message: I'm a little concerned that several of the reviews here appear to be from a fan site, and probably don't meet our criteria as suitable references. RomanSpa (talk) 06:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviews 

message: Copied from my talkpage (as it's relevant to this article):
Joseph2302User:GAPeach0583 has editing rights and PERMISSION from subject Graeham Goble to edit and/or completely remove sections he no longer wants on his Wikipedia page.  You may verify this with him direct at gG@graehamgoble.com.  I have full permission to remove the PERSONAL LIFE section.  Please stop restoring the section.  Thank you.
:Wikipedia policy states that in order to make substantial changes, you must obtain a WP:CONSENSUS to do so. In order to do so, you need to interact with other users on the talkpage. No one person is allowed to claim exclusive ownership to an article. 
:Also, this discussion would be best on the article talkpage, since it affects the article, so I'm going to copy and paste it to Talk:Graeham Goble. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There are procedures for action by a concerned BLP subject at WP:BLPCOMPLAIN. WWGB (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graeham Goble 
Talk:Scientology in Belgium

message: Shouldn't this article also be in one of the Belgium-related articles? I don't know which one would be best. Maybe :Category:Belgian culture, :Category:Belgian society or :Category:Religion in Belgium? (The last one seems most appropriate content-wise, but maybe its inclusion there would be disputed?) --David Edgar (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  In one of the Belgium-related categories?
Talk:List of Gospels

message: The Gospel of Marcion page says that the document has been largely reconstructed, so shouldnt it be in that section? Fig (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Marcion

message: except the Gospel of Barnabas (16th century).
: There must be another article for the "Modern Gospels"... Böri (talk) 17:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why shouldn't all gospels, modern, ancient, canonical or heterodox, be placed within this page? If they should not be placed here, then where should all gospels be listed? Quite a bit of work has now apparently been discarded by those who do not favour certain criteria for inclusion . It would be helpful if a standard was stated on this page if it is to be exercised, and an inclusive list established if it will not be this one. Thank you.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 00:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  No need for "Modern Gospels"! 

message: Someone should find a suitable place to put the Freer Logion or just remove it. It is out of place where it is currently. It was originally under the Mark Gospel but someone moved it.
RandomishLodestone (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freer Logion 

message: There is too much weight given to the non-canonical Gospels. No mention is made as to why they were chosen when the canon was closed (they were all agreed upon and in wide circulation, and had apostolic authority) while the others were not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I added hatnotes to the "Canonical Gospels" section to articles on New Testament and canonical gospels - these are also linked in the lead, but MOS:DUPLINK allows for duplicate links in lists - I hope this at least partly addresses your concern - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weight 

message: I proposed in hidden text for the section Modern Gospels that it should only list:
*Gospels for which an article exists
*Gospels with a citable reference that they are at least partially notable.
In doing this, I removed a half-dozen red links that were unexplained entirely, or vanity publications, cults, and an obvious troll.
SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 03:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moden Gospels: Criteria for inclusion 

message: This edit grouped the Gospel of John with the synoptic Gospels, but this is untrue. 
I have made a correction. 
Perhaps worth checking the other changes made by this IP. Andrewa (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  John is not synoptic 

message: This is not a canon gospel, and Luke should not be under it. 2601:2C5:C380:89A0:C5FC:F675:68D8:BC31 (talk) 01:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apocalypse of Peter
Talk:Ophite Diagrams

message: I'm wondering whether the third paragraph in the article should identify the greek words in upper case given that the image has the words in lower case. For  example the diagram includes ζωη which the article writes in the upper case ΖΩΗ . (pinging  who I think first inserted them).Naraht (talk) 12:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That was simply the convention used by the Jewish Encyclopedia entry that was copied. Kramden (talk) 03:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Talk:Quebrada de Humahuaca

message: The Valley of Humahuaca is not North of Buenos Aires but West. If you go 1000kms North you will end up in central Brazil.
Charles Gouin
Bsc geography 2800:CD0:CF88:C600:BC2E:D257:D184:9202 (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  geographic position
Talk:Gold as an investment/Archive 3

message: The http://www.livegoldprice.info/ for the current price is a spam link. We should change it to something more credible. I suggest http://www.insidegold.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.192.154 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 12 July 2007
I wanted to suggest a external link for addition. http://www.coinalbum.org/page-us-historic-labor-for-gold-19.html This page shows the relationship between an average days earnings for non salaried workers in the united states and how many ounces of gold could be purchased for that amount in that year. Sources are cited at the bottom of the page (as links). Following the source tree back up results in offsite .gov or major commercial sites (kitco). ((Ever since reading adam smith I have had an interest in discovering sources to measure all commodities by labor, instead of national currencies. If somebody knows another way to get this information to readers, please suggest)). 71.189.78.8 21:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it. Prestonp 22:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam links 

message: I came across this article on a request for comment here and have read through both sides of this debate.  I'm far from an investment guru and certainly don't pretend to know anything about commodities.  That said, however, with all due respect, "This appreciation has been cyclical and it appears that the next 10 or more years will favor the performance of gold over stocks" does appear to be speculative in nature and does smack of NPOV as it is written.  My suggestion would be starting the line with "some analysts believe" or something along those lines, to show that it is a somewhat controversial opinion.  Ted, can you cite a reliable source (I do wonder about the use of Jefferson Gold & Bullion as a source) contrary to this prediction?  As for WP:CRYSTAL, if the research is verifiable, I don't see an issue with it.  My two cents (how much gold will that buy me?).  Douglasmtaylor 12:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree with anything you say, but that a non-notable analyst believes X isn't encyclopedic.  It's not that hard to find equally non-notable analysts who disagree.  There's a WP:RS problem, too.   THF 12:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re:  Rfc
Talk:Book of Jasher (Pseudo-Jasher)

message: The editor of the 19th century edition, self-described as of Emmanuel College, Cambridge. The initials narrow this down to Charles Rogers Bond, admitted to Emmanuel in 1800. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: C. R. Bond

message: This may be the ultimate source (alas, only snippets on Google Books): "On three books purporting to be the Book of Jasher", John Birkbeck Nevins, 1885
May be somebody will be interested enough to find the book in the library large enough to contain it. --Shufel (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential good source
Talk:3 Baruch

message: I looked Everywhere On The Internet And Could Not Find Any Source For This Book, So I Don't Think This Exists, unless someone shows me the links to this! THis Page Should Be Deleted And Erased For Good! Really!24.7.204.215 (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Internet is not the standard of authority. You need to study the primary hard copy sources.jonathon (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Article Should Be Deleted
Talk:Shorewall

message: Should we also say that support for shorewall users is available on the freenode.net IRC server in the #shorewall channel? --Ggeller 04:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

message: are there limitations of shorewall compared to using the raw iptables. could these be listed here? --194.36.2.209 (talk) 15:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  limitations
Talk:Apocalypse of Moses

message: : I've made a redirect to Life of Adam and Eve#Apocalypse of Moses.  Apocalypse of Moses is simply a name for the Greek version of the Life of Adam and Eve and should be dealt with the other versions of the text. All information in this page have been moved and now are present in Article Life of Adam and Eve.A ntv (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Talk:English Short-faced Tumbler

message: Correct naming for this breed is: English Short Faced Tumbler. Suggest name change of this page? Several different naming pages of this breed all redirect here. Sting au 04:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sting Buzz Me... 23:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change page name discussion 
Talk:The Lost Books of the Bible and the Forgotten Books of Eden

message: Authors/Editors, publisher, etc.? --75.133.166.19 (talk) 08:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have an original copy of the book " The Lost Book of the Bible printed in 1926. If interested contact me by e-mail: wshcopace@aol.com. 2601:782:380:450:655E:E451:9F48:A7B9 (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic Bibliographic Info? 

message: Protoevangelion now just redirects to New Testament apocrypha.  I'm wondering if the second book in here is actually Protoevangelion of James, but don't have the information here to verify. Heptazane (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is. Koro Neil (talk) 13:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protoevangelion of James? 

message: Is there such a missing bible text ?--176.12.107.139 (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book of Sophia ?
Talk:Fort Montgomery (Hudson River)

message: The two forts should really have separate articles devoted to them. Daniel Case 04:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I split them. doncram 20:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class.  --dashiellx (talk) 00:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 
Talk:Kauffman Center for the Performing Arts

message: As I tagged the article with  and  I'm responding to a request for more detailed suggestions. The opening paragraph focuses on the size and cost of the venue, which if they are not extraordinary are of temporary interest only. The size might fit with either the facilities section or the architecture section; the cost might fit with the history, or perhaps a new background/origin section explaining why it was built. The facilities section is OK, the resident companies is OK, except for "troops/troupes" homonym. (This is the only real copyediting issue I see on review now.) The architecture section sounds suspiciously like a cut-and-paste from a brochure or project proposal and that should be checked out; if it comes from a reliable source (such as an architecture critic) it should be cited. The list of firms is directory-like and promotional. The organization section is a collection of vanity redlinks (are any of these people WP:BIO-level notable, or just local luminaries?), and suggests that the facility is named for someone associated with the board, but doesn't explain why (back to origin section). Finally, there are no cited sources providing independent verification of the importance of the subject. I think I will change  to  to make clearer what is missing. --Dhartung | Talk 04:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done and done.65.28.9.8 02:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyediting 
Talk:Alan Crofoot

message: This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement.  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. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem
Talk:Atlantic Archipelago

message: just want to be sure before its added to the article as it wasCaomhan27 09:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was pocock the first to publish the term? or was it geographers? as suggested by davenport 

message: Is this article for real? Seems more like an anti-British Isles article to me. If it stays, its needs some work done to it.GoodDay 22:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is pretty easily resolved, GoodDay - check for published uses of the term (e.g. Google Books). My opinion on a stub of this nature is known from above and elsewhere - I think that it should redirect the British Isles - but the term itself is one of the many alternatives get around the problematic nature of the term British Isles. I promise you, nobody is making this up! :) --sony-youthpléigh 16:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, it's just that this 'political correctness' theme, tends to get annoying at times. GoodDay 17:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree somewhat - your woes in this subject are understandable and I just want to say thanks for the continued input. --sony-youthpléigh 20:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Atlantic Archipelago?
Talk:Your Friend the Rat

message: If this is Pixar's next short film, why isn't there an article on it? dogman15 04:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there is absolutely no information about it to the extent that it is worth having a separate page for the film. All we know is that it's a short on the Ratatouille DVD.  That's not enough content and would be cause for deletion rather quickly. SpikeJones 11:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Where's the article?

message: I haven't seen this short and want to know what it's about. However, the plot section doesn't make any grammatical sense. Could someone clean it up? 24.21.137.100 (talk) 21:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot section makes no sense

message: This article states that Your Friend the Rat is the first traditionally animated Pixar short, but Mr. Incredible and Pals seems to indicate otherwise. 199.91.34.33 (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  First? 

message: Anyone see Wall-e in the spaceship-like bus in the song?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.7.129 (talk) 04:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: see List of Pixar film references. SpikeJones (talk) 13:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WALL-E 
Talk:Tumbledown Mountain

message: I created the article with a picture I took this weekend of the view from the summit, but the infobox should really have a picture of the mountain taken from ground level.  I can try to get a good picture of this on my next visit, but if someone else has a good picture already they can contribute, please do so. Tim Pierce 04:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional photos
Talk:She Called Up

message: I found this video clip of She Called Up on YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Onto32CsCmg. It looks like it's the actual video clip but I have my doubts. Maybe because it doesn't feel like a Crowded House video. It intrigues me as to why Crowded House has made a video clip like this for this song when they could of had a much better clip. It makes me think they have turned on the cute factor instead of making a meaningful video clip like they did with Don't Stop Now. Just my thoughts. --Lakeyboy 04:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Music Video