lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Humanist Manifesto II

message: However, in addition to its rejection of religion I've read the manifesto and nowhere does it reject religion per se, only "traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human needs and experience". It even praises religion: "religion may inspire dedication to the highest ethical ideals" and "We appreciate the need to preserve the best ethical teachings in the religious traditions of humankind". --92.208.244.8 (talk) 12:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rejection of religion? 
Talk:Tom Bentley

message: The page is in dire need of cleanup for POV. Pascal.Tesson 16:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Robert Tralins

message: Where did he get the story on Beyond Belief about the kid who disappeared in his closet after complaining of a monster.  I asked on a cryptozoology or Fortean board a few years ago and was told that Robert Trailins is the Alan Smithee of literature, which I gather from this page is not the case, which reopens where he got the story, since the name is not indicative of someone hiding behind a pseudonym.  --Scottandrewhutchins 16:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Monster in the Closet story

message: * "He is best known for his first-hand research and story collections featured on the television shows"
* "He is best known for his novels"
Sounds kind of contradicting... -80.133.106.95 (talk) 02:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  best known
Talk:Boundary

message: Emotional Boundaries
A boundary can also be a type of personal defence mechanism. People put up emotional boundaries to prevent them from disapointment, pain or suffering due to another persons actions.--172.188.160.142 16:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

message: What about state or country boundaries?  I'm not sure how and if they fit into any of these definitions.  Also, if there is another name by which these types of divisions (there's another name right there :)) are made, I believe, as common speak at least in the US, that a page on boundaries between countries and other municipalities should both exist and link to this page. panth0r (talk) 03:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  State Boundaries 

message: The boundary is not the same as the limit. By limiting magnitude of a medium limit defines details of that medium but in itself it is not the medium, which it limits. Limit is the place where observer is conscious of his self and of the nonexistence of any other medium apart from the medium of the limit, which is the Nothingness. The limit is static and it is defined from the side of the observed medium. The rest of the medium of the limit is undefined. Boundary, on the other hand, is a magnitude of some static medium limited at two opposing sides or ends and it separates two media or two parts of one medium. Limit is one part of the duality with the medium, which it limits, while the boundary forms trinity with the two limits and it can have any plurality and any organization of its parts. The simplest boundary is a unit ‘1’, acting as the observer and the unit of measurement. The trinity of the two limits ‘0’ and the perfect observer ‘1’ remains static and therefore eternal. The observer ‘1’ does not change even though, on the inside, he consists of parts. To observe his ‘self’ he has to move consciousness from the first limit ‘0’ to the second limit ‘0’. To do this he has to cross the boundary between the two limits. The change of position of the observer’s consciousness occurs in the Nothingness and therefore it is not observed so that the trinity remains static. The unit ‘1’, acting as the observer, consists internally of reflection of the 2 units on the outside. This means that the static unit ‘1’ consists of 4 parts, 2 internally and 2 externally. With each next observation (n+1) plurality of the limits of Nothingness of the static unit ‘1’ changes as 2 to power (n+1), where (0<n<oo) and the imperfect observers, as parts of the perfect observer, change to (1/2) to power (n+1). Internal dynamism of the boundary ‘1’ manifests itself as time while the static state of ‘1’ is space. Different observers see different space times.  KK   (81.151.92.232 (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  boundary - limit  (0<1>0) 

message: what are boundaries 41.116.48.188 (talk) 07:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  boundaries
Talk:St Paul's Church, Whitley Bay

message: At present the article is about the church as a religious entity, but there is a minimal amount of history and absolutely no architectural description. At present, the article doesn't even present enough information as to why it should not be deleted. Perhaps something from the listed building description  should be added. --  Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 04:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing information
Talk:River Team

message: The description of names misses a section of waterway between Kyo Burn and Causey Burn known as Houghwell Burn, shown on various maps with no exact start/end. Kyo Burn seems to become Houghwell Burn just upstream from Houghwell House, Tanfield School and the B6173. There seems to be a smaller watercourse joining Kyo Burn at that point. See https://www.wwf.org.uk/uk-rivers-map or https://nrfa.ceh.ac.uk/data/search for this detail. Houghwell Burn seems to become Causey Burn at or downstream from Tanfield Lane. See https://magic.defra.gov.uk/MagicMap.aspx for some evidence. e-tat (talk) 06:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  missing detail
Talk:Beauty on a Back Street

message: This album was very progressive and experiental.  I don't see it as streamlined rock.  Because it was progressive it wasn't suited for pop radio and got very little airplay.  However, if you like progressive rock, it is a very good album.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Endy9 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progressive rock
Talk:Katie Sandwina

message: WikiProject Biography Assessment Drive
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- 98.6.77.134 17:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 

message: * https://gwbbpodcast.com/episodes/s01e23-katie-brumbach
* https://athenasports.com.br/story/moment-in-time-1910-the-strongest-woman-in-the-world-katie-sandwina/?lang=en
* https://drive.google.com/file/d/1d3NBuzJkXIn9k3ApqkJ03Bou8CyK-IhT/view
* https://www.telegraph.co.uk/womens-sport/2020/05/26/moment-time-1910-strongest-woman-world-katie-sandwina/
* https://dangerousminds.net/comments/get_in_the_ring_vintage_images_of_female_bodybuilders_and_strong_women_show
* https://shootingparrots.co.uk/2018/05/16/s-is-for-katie-sandwina/
* https://physicalculturestudy.com/2017/09/07/katie-sandwina-the-strongest-woman-in-the-world/
* https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-great-sandwina
* https://www.thehumanmarvels.com/sandwina-woman-of-steel/
* https://forgottennewsmakers.com/2010/12/14/katie-sandwina-1884-%E2%80%93-1952-circus-strongwoman/
* https://secretvienna.org/katie-sandwina-the-strongest-of-them-all/
* https://suffrajitsu.com/sandwina-the-woman-of-steel/
* https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85049554/1911-07-12/ed-1/seq-8.pdf
* Center Ring: Katie Sandwina and the Construction of Celebrity 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 06:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  PD pictures
Talk:Animistic fallacy

message: The bullet point on Marxism is unnecessary because it is not a neutral statement. It shows your negative sentiment on the subject. Uwaisis (talk) 02:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong, those are pathetic fallacy.  And the Marxist example and stock market examples perfect examples of the fallacy.  A fallacy doesn't mean the conclusion is necessarily wrong; it means the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premise and argument.  It may be true that the stock market dropped today due to manipulation, but the argument, "(premise) the market dropped today therefore (conclusion) there  was price manipulation" is fallacious, even if the conclusion is true.--Louiedog (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any verifiable sources to back up your claim against the charge of questionable neutrality? This is a stub without any verifiablecitations, which means this is original research and is, in fact, not proven to be neutral as it currently stands. --Dante the Bard (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Louiedog is correct above, however it is best if we stick to examples presented by reliable sources rather than our own inventions.  If for some reason we must create our own examples it should be easy to avoid contentious issues. —Mrwojo (talk) 03:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: Just to clarify, what exactly is the difference between pathetic fallacy and animistic fallacy?  It's just slightly confusing as the same example is used for both George.eliza (talk) 07:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless this question is properly answered soon, it might be necessary to merge the to articles in order to eliminate confusion. --Dante the Bard (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

text: I've replaced the old examples by ones presented by Sowell. —Mrwojo (talk) 03:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Still confused! Am puzzled by how "some spirit" becomes "someone" ie a person? Also wonder if Sowel might have had a run in with an engineer at some time? I ask as most engineers might be accused of this because a) cars are driven by a person, and b) most engineering models *animate* black boxes (which can be anything) which are unchanging/passive without the transfer functions. 82.47.140.47 (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pathetic Fallacy and Animistic Fallacy 

message: This Wikipedia stub is an example of original research because it lacks the citations to qualify it as being verifiable. As such, websites like www.reference.com are citing this stub as if it were verifiable fact, which is, technically, contributing to the spread of misinformation. --Dante the Bard (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a reference to Sowell's book.  The reliable sources that I found that discuss this fallacy cite Sowell, so I wouldn't be surprised if he originated this usage.  —Mrwojo (talk) 03:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research and the NEED for Verifiable Information
Talk:List of Russian philosophers

message: Why is Ayn Rand not listed here? Surely she belongs in the list, being born and educated in Russia, and some of her works being set in Russia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Overskore (talk • contribs) 18:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. She should be on the list, even though she ultimately identified as and chose to be an American. Even though her ideas are Western in essence, it is both remarkable and interesting that she was born in Russia, grew up there, and was educated in Russian schools and academia. Granted, her family was cosmopolitan and in her childhood she was probably more exposed to e.g. French literature than most other Russian people, but still. cun 11:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ayn Rand 

message: Is it permissible to list Tolstoy under one of the Christian categories as well? Dirtbike spaceman (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tolstoy 
Talk:Jimador

message: This article existed as a one-liner, and it was transwikied to Wiktionary, and then deleted. I think there's value in having both, so I've expanded the original a bit, and added some references, but there's also the interwiki link to Wiktionary. -Harmil 17:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previous version and Wiktionary 

message: There are plenty of images of Jimadors on the Web, but none that are free. Given that it's not impossible (or even all that unreasonable) to go take a picture of one in action, it would be hard to make a fair use case for those... do any Wikipedia editors live in an area (or plan to visit one) where they could take such a picture (hopefully showing the coa in use as well)? -Harmil 17:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 
Talk:Norms Restaurants

message: This reads like an ad, containing nothing but slogans and lists of establishments
This does not read like a commercial. It simply indicates the strategy of Norms - Its campaign. Starbucks, for example, has information about its strategy and that page is not considered advertising. Additionally, there is no indication about the price or any of its product. This is not blatant advertising. But I will take a shot at rewriting some points.
: I agree. It's ugly right now, but when I started it I was not starting an ad page. It's one of many many quasi-historic Southern California food chains. —Ben FrantzDale 19:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The version in question is clearly an advertisement, so I reverted the page to the January 1 version, which was much more neutral.--FreeKresge 05:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion
Talk:FreakyLinks

message: Original research has been moved to talk page:
Line being :, possibly among the first such online petitions,
No source was presented.84.68.110.116 17:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research? 

message: I catched it at a late time but Chiller must of had a small marathon or just a one hour special of FreakyLinks on March 2nd. I caught it at 2am and I was shocked to see it on TV again.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.3.117.44 (talk) 05:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chiller
Talk:Value of information

message: I feel as if the article is written poorly as many grammatical errors are made throughout. It could also do with more references. I suggest adding a warning. Niklas V Lehmann (talk) 14:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article could use a review 

message: Discuss the value of information 102.89.34.85 (talk) 04:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Library and information science  

message: I believe there is an error in the example. Currently it says F = g(k+c) but shouldn't it be F = gk + c? You pay the consultant whether or not the outcome will happen so it shouldn't be multiplied by g (the probability of the good outcome). 2601:602:9801:F0AB:FC96:BDA3:62C3:CD8A (talk) 04:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in example
Talk:Entelechy

message: I mistakenly wrote "_energeia_" in the edit summary where I meant to write "_entelecheia_"21:53, 20 January 2009 The Tetrast (Talk | contribs) (6,337 bytes) (→Classical Philosophy:  Added that _energeia_ gets translated as "fulfillment" in the version of Aristotle's _Physics_ linked in footnote) (undo)(In the "Entelechy" wiki itself I got it right the first time.) The Tetrast (talk) 13:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit summary correction

message: A couple of things to note about events relating to this article:
:1. As can be seen at potentiality and actuality, that article, which is the proposed target for material from this and other over-lapping articles, is blocked from editing for a few days. This is one result from the edit warring of Machine Elf yesterday. He was also asked to stay away from the article for a week, in reply to which he has said he will stay away permanently. That's an unfortunate way for the road block in discussions to end, but at least that is over for now.
:2. While the article is blocked, it is time to try to get a vision together about this article and the ones that overlap with it. Obviously I have my own ideas, which continue to change, and obviously I intend to improve this article and the over-lapping ones so while the article is blocked I have set up a working draft on my user space. I learned last time I tried a draft in this complex case of over-lapping articles that it is possibly sometimes naive to ask others to work with me on such proposals, i.e. on the drafting itself, because people have different visions and can not understand where others are headed until the job is complete anyway. So I'll work on it myself during the block, and I hope I can this time bring it alone to a point where the target is more clear and I create less panic. I have made an effort already to incorporate material from this article to show how I think a structure might work which covers it. I suggest comments be made here on this talk page or else at Talk:Potentiality and actuality.
:3. There are obviously lots of open discussions now: discussions I was trying to have with Machine Elf and others which petered out. So where were we? To move forward I will also try, if I can find the time, to write an analysis of differences between my draft and other versions, including old and draft versions, of this article, and the other articles in discussion (entelechy, energeia, Actus et potentia, and dunamis.
I hope that makes sense to others.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates on events relating to this article
Talk:Christmas Island District High School

message: mid importance due to location ? Victuallers 17:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Gross profit

message: Regarding proposed merger of Gross income and Gross profit
* Oppose. The concepts of gross income and gross profit are completely different. Merging the two would create needless confusion. Both articles probably need some work to clarify the concepts. "Gross income" as used in the article of that name is primarily a U.S. Federal income tax law (tax accounting) concept. "Gross profit" as used in the article of that name is primarily a financial accounting concept. Yours, Famspear 17:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merger

message: I believe this article does not make it clear if there is any difference between indirect costs and fixed costs. They seem to be used interchangably at the end of the article. The wikipedia page for indirect costs redirects to fixed costs however that page says not all indirect costs are fixed costs.
Perhaps clarification in the article about whether indirect costs which are variable are included in calculating gross profit could clear things up.
I would have altered it myself, but I don't have a clue what is correct :-)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.136.244 (talk) 01:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusion=

message: Gross profit =total receipts-total expenditure  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.78.251.130 (talk) 06:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gross Profit 

message: It seems like these should be included too, no?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.254.195.125 (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) costs?
Talk:Mountain laurel

message: Sophora secundiflora is also called "mountain laurel" or "Texas mountain laurel." It has purple flowers of a different shape than is shown here for this other "mountain laurel." See,
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:iYAGZiORkkcJ:www.ci.austin.tx.us/trees/downloads/app_n.doc+tree+%22purple+flower%22+texas&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a
http://museum.utep.edu/chih/gardens/plants/RtoS/sophsecu.htm
Donald R. Davis 17:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:The Amazing Spider-Man Family

message: This page looks like it was just copy/pasted from a promo for the actual comic book. SO Copy-vio!
'WiiWillieWiki→(Talk) 17:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Copyrighted text has been removed. Thanks for the notification. - Richard Cavell 03:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Everytime I Die

message: I honestly don't think this song is notable enough to warrant an article.
This song, boosted Children of Bodom's Popularity, and was Dedicated to Teemu, I think it should have an article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.9.72 (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-03-12/Paid editing

message: Once upon a time, I had a premonition about such nasty things: Perhaps? and I had written on one of my user pages: "I am sharing this with utmost good faith. My intuition says that there may be a number of editors who are marauding the length and breadth of Wikipedia with a view to disrupt its functioning. Wikipedia must have a system to record real identities (albeit not disclosed to all but kept confidential with the records of Wikipedia Foundation) of users after they attain a particular hierarchical level, say, the level of being administrators. This has become an imperative requirement, as behind the thick veil of anonymity (I mean the users with user names giving no clue to their identities) hiding like the proverbial black sheep who may be doing disruption to Wikipedia by their overt or covert action. The system of identification is currently ensured for certain other levels in the hierarchical levels. If we do not ensure this, may be, we are not doing full justice to the donors who pay Wikipedia Foundation to build an encyclopedia. I have a premonition that some such editors may be under the pay roll of some organizations that are inimical to Wikipedia. I think that I shall be proved wrong in my opinion and judgment, and ultimately no Wikipedains shall be traced to be acting in the manner described by me and the name of Wikipedia Foundation shall remain unblemished." 
I still hold the same views. --Bhadani 17:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Perhaps?

message: I answered a question like this on yahoo answers. This school is a fake and not recognized by the CHEA, Council For Higher Education Accreditation. Maybe we should put a permanent link on all these types of Wiki articles, so people can search for their schools to see if they are accredited. This school claims to be accredited by UNESCO, but this list is self nominating and therefore is not reviewed by anyone. http://www.chea.org/search/default.asp --Kolrobie 20:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Almeda?
Talk:Bergamottin

message: *This is clearly much more prevalent in grapefruit juice - but how prevalent? Are we talking ten times the concentration, a thousand times the concentration, in other citrus? Shimgray | talk | 14:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Is there anybody who knows if the information is right that stinging nettle contents bergamottin/dihydroxybergamottin too?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.181.30.189 (talk) 13:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Stinging nettle

message: In the biosynthesis diagram currently in the article (:File:Bergamottin_biosynthesis.svg), the final product ("8, bergamottin") is shown as being derived from bergapten (7).  But it seems to be that it would make much more sense if it were derived from bergaptol (6).  If 7 were to be converted to 8 it would first have to undergo demethylation back to 6 anyway - the methylation/demethylation sequence is entirely superfluous. ChemNerd (talk) 17:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in the biosynthesis diagram?
Talk:Michael Manning (murderer)

message: The following RTÉ article cites 1944, rather than 1954, as the date of Manning's execution. Quite a large discrepancy. Can anyone confirm one way or the other? http://www.rte.ie/news/features/referenda/death/tonyconnelly1.html
DublinDilettante 03:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of execution
Talk:Tomaso Antonio Vitali

message: the second paragraph of the opening needs a citation.  i just read that same paragraph on andrew manze's website!
Laff07 17:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled