lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:The Spook's Battle

message: In my opinion, this article either lacks sufficient Attribution that it satisfies the Notability criteria for , or it may violate the Conflict of interest guideline, or perhaps it is a Copyright violation. 
Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources to verify any claims of notability. Even though the lack of reliable source attribution in an article is not grounds for deletion in itself, an article with absolutely no sources (or only external links to unreliable ones) suggests to some editors that multiple reliable sources may not, in fact, exist.
Although I am considering tagging this article for deletion according to the Deletion policy, I am nonetheless willing to assist recent contributors to this article, to make some constructive improvements to it ... I do not have time to examine this article in depth at the moment, and it may improve over time, in which case this warning was premature.
Please respond on this Discussion page, instead of on my Talk page, in order to avoid fragmenting the conversation.
To better understand why I have used this template, please read Flag templates for deletion warnings ... I realize that some of the expressed possible concerns may not be appropriate in this case.
:Category:Flagged articles—triwbe (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notice: This article lacks [[WP:A]] to establish {{ #switch: {{lc:Fiction}}
| academics = [[WP:PROF]]
| biographies = [[WP:BIO]]
| people = [[WP:BIO]]
| companies = [[WP:CORP]]
| groups = [[WP:CORP]]
| fiction = [[WP:FICTION]]
| movies = [[WP:MOVIE]]
| music = [[WP:MUSIC]]
| schools = [[WP:SCL]]
| web = [[WP:WEB]]
| proposed = [[WP:N]]}}

message: I have removed the :Category:Flagged articles from
the message above 
. it was flagged at least two months ago by Some Other Editor, 
but the current version looks OK to me. Avicennasis @ 06:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have replaced the :Category:Flagged articles. This article has no reliable sources and needs improving. --Triwbe (talk) 14:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Replaced the category colons and tagged the article on page as refimprove.  – S. Rich (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Flagged articles]]
Talk:Crime in Bhutan

message: The non-political crime section claims that rape is not an extensive problem in Bhutan.  This is not correct.  In fact, there is a tradition called "night hunting", which entails young men sneak through the windows to have sex with women at night.  While this is supposed to happen only consensually, it is well known that this is often not the case.  There is even an article about night hunting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_hunting.  There is even a research presentation that claims that 80% of night hunting cases involved coercion: http://www.svri.org/forums/forum2013/Presentations/PchiruShelni.pdf
See also:
https://thebhutanese.bt/respecting-women/#:~:text=One%20such%20notion%20is%20'night,is%20equivalent%20to%20legal%20rape.
http://www.bhutannewsnetwork.com/2015/04/night-hunting-a-tradition-of-rape/ 165.123.230.142 (talk) 03:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rape in Bhutan
Template talk:Harringay

message: I guess I have to accept what you've done to the box. For my money it's visually less appealing and I'm not sure it offers any improvements - but I don't want to get into a struggle over it.
However, I have added back the overview link. It's ok for Wikipedia habitues, but many people who use Wikipedia don't know all the tricks of the trade. Most people can work out that blue text means a link. But in this navbox it's not obvious. So relying on the history subtitle as a link to the overview page isn't effective, particularly when the other sub-head is not a link.
Hope you'll allow me this small change.
hjuk (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-include Overview

message: Hi, I would like to note that templates (or any article, for that matter) shouldn't link to disambiguation pages.  So, I would like to change the template somehow that would suit you, but won't link to :Harringay Station.  It's your call on how you think it's best to do this.  Thanks!  –Schmloof  03:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, so they're separated, but how has that improved anything in any way? It's just made the list longer.hjuk (talk) 00:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harringay stations
Talk:Grange Park, Enfield

message: Isn't it more likely to be confused with Grange Hill? They are both (ducks behind convenient wall) rather anonymous outer suburbs, while Kilburn Grange Park is, well a park.Pterre (talk) 14:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good grief, when I said anonymous I didn't realise there wasn't even a Grange Hill, London article about the place rather than the TV series! Pterre (talk) 14:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One reason for putting the distinguish thing in there was that Grange Park, London redirected to the Kilburn Park for some reason. I will change it to other uses. Sorry for the late reply. Simply south (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kilburn?
Talk:Attack of the Saucerman

message: One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s).  Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications 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, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  VernoWhitney (talk) 14:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Talk:Survivor (2009 video game)

message: Replay Studios updated their website. As a result, the previous link to it was not working anymore. I've replaced it with their current one.
65.255.147.8 (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Website Change 

message: According to IGN this game has been cancelled.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.226.233 (talk) 00:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cancelled
Talk:The Cry of the Icemark

message: Alright.  Here's what I did.  I took a bunch of content that was above the fold, and I either deleted it (in the case of plot summaries which also existed below the fold) or edited it fairly substantially and moved it into trivia.  If anyone wants to just delete it, go right ahead, I just felt bad doing so.  If anyone has any information on why it won awards or what critics said about it, please add.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.241.186 (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Talk:The Icemark Chronicles

message: "It appears to be based on a Medieval Roman Empire if it lasted to around the 13th to 14th centuries."
I don't like this sentence, since there was a Medieval Roman Empire that lasted until the 15th century.  On the other hand, I don't want to edit it myself, since I haven't actually read the book, and can't say if they're at all comparable.  91.109.170.49 (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

message: Moved to talk because it seems to be a section of trivia RJFJR (talk) 19:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: References to the modern world
Talk:Lodderia iota

message: This article was based on Powell A. W. B., New Zealand Mollusca, William Collins Publishers Ltd, Auckland, New Zealand 1979 . It has been revised on this date to eliminate a probable copyright violation of that book. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites 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, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. (For background on this situation, please see the related administrator's noticeboard discussion.) Thank you.  --Whpq (talk) 10:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Talk:Lodderia

message: This article was based on Powell A. W. B., New Zealand Mollusca, William Collins Publishers Ltd, Auckland, New Zealand 1979 . It has been revised on this date to eliminate a probable copyright violation of that book. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites 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, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. (For background on this situation, please see the related administrator's noticeboard discussion.) Thank you.  --Whpq (talk) 10:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Talk:John W. Boyer

message: On 17 October 2008, User:128.135.45.211 added misinformation to this article, contested by Dr. Boyer in a University of Chicago alumni publication (The Core, Winter 2011, p. 7). I have removed it and begun cleanup and vetting of all statements of fact per WP:BLP. Jokestress (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism and false information
Talk:Ella Shohat

message: It seems that the main point of this article is to criticize Ella Shohat without showing the other view of point
the article was a puff-piece.  I added some criticisms because they appeared in a major newspaper.  Someone who knows her work should add sourced material showing that she has done something worth admiring - if she has.American Clio (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Nomi no Sukune

message: WikiProject Biography Assessment Drives
Want to help write or improve biographies? Check out WikiProject Biography Tips for writing better articles. —Yamara ✉ 05:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 
Talk:WNEC-FM

message: The FCC lists this station as being silent for more than two months beginning on 2007-12-07.
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/status/silentFM.html
This list was last updated on 2008-02-19. - Dravecky (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silent
Talk:Katori-class battleship

message: the last capital ship built outside Japan was the Kongo. since the Kongo was a battlecruiser, the statement that these were the last battleships built so is lexically correct, but surely misleading (espcially because the Kongo was super-super with respect to these). pietro151.15.236.222 (talk) 08:47, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  last battleship
Talk:Intoxication defense

message: The article lacks citations and does not fully explain the defense.  It is also written from the POV hostile to low BOC% for drunk driving and "puritanical" societies.  The "dutch courage defense" appears to be an attempt to draw a slightly related slang term into the legal sphere.  The division of crimes according to specific and general intent ignores crimes of negligence, where intent is not a necessary element.  The section on "Foreseeability test" confuses dram shop act laws (a crime of negligence) with crimes of strict liability and the intoxication defense.  The intoxication defense is an excuse defense.  Strict liability offenses disregard the intent of the defendant.  It is possible for someone to have a high blood alcohol content and be a more adept driver than everyone in the world, yet possessing a percentage over the legal limit will result in strict liability regardless of the intent or awareness of the offender.  The "Offenses of basic and specific intent" section makes two major errors in reference to "states", which I take in the sense of United States rather than countries.  First the division of basic and specific intent crimes exists in only 1/3 of states.  The remaining 2/3, DC, and the Federal Government use a version of the Model Penal Code, which revised culpability requirements from the common law.  Second, it fails to mention how voluntary intoxication is disfavored or banned in all but a handful of states.  Additionally, the Supreme Court in Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37 (1996) held that there is no due process right to the defense and banning the defense is justified (the case also gives a very good history of the defense with citations).  In short, the article needs to be rewritten taking special note to the common law treatment of intoxication and how each English colony treated the defense or lack of defense subsequently.  The sections that include opinions and conclusions not supported should be deleted. Legis Nuntius (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: rewrite
Talk:Irene Hirano

message: http://www.fordfound.org/about/bios/i_hirano
CEO of notable museum, board member of huge foundation, now engaged to powerful senator.  Google tells the rest.  She is notable, not famous.  --DHeyward (talk) 15:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: Unfortunately, the article still suffers from sourcing issues.  Here's a few links to some coverage that might help things along:
http://www.rafu.com/2010/06/hirano-inouye-ford-foundation/
http://www.rafu.com/2016/02/10-selected-for-2016-ja-leadership-delegation/
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/24029183/exclusive-irene-inouye-reacts-to-presidential-medal-of-freedom-for-sen-inouye
Chrisw80 (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability (again) 

message: Moving unscourced material to the talk page. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced material 

message: Do we know if she was married before she married Senator Inouye? There is mention of a daughter being a flower girl at their wedding, but no mention of a previous marriage or non-marital relationship. 2603:800C:3A40:6400:6867:3269:5C9A:C802 (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we know if she was married before she married Senator Inouye? 

message: Hirono Inouye is a sansei (third generation) on her father's side, but since her mother was born in Japan Hirono Inouye is a nisei (second generation) on her mother's side. 2603:800C:3A40:6400:6867:3269:5C9A:C802 (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sansei or Nisei?
Talk:Oireachtas (Irish Free State)

message: It seems these three articles are never going to ever significantly expand from their current sizes or in different directions from one another due to the fact limited time period in which the Oireachtas of the Irish Free State existed and the limited amount of encyclopedic information which can be produced on them. A large amount of the information on these pages are duplicated. One article would make it much clearer to readers and prevent them from having to move to the Dáil Éireann (Irish Free State) and Seanad Éireann (Irish Free State) pages and to discover similar content. I oversaw this process being used for the Parliament of Southern Ireland article which merged the House of Commons and Senate sections into it, after a few additonal tweaks I had the quality of the article reassessed and it had changed from a Start class article to a B class article. I feel this success would be at least replicated in this case also. Shatter Resistance (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles. Shatter Resistance (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles. Shatter Resistance (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: No comment in over 6 weeks, close as no consensus. Snappy (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion
Talk:Lodderia eumorpha cookiana

message: This article was based on Powell A. W. B., New Zealand Mollusca, William Collins Publishers Ltd, Auckland, New Zealand 1979 . It has been revised on this date to eliminate a probable copyright violation of that book. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites 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, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. (For background on this situation, please see the related administrator's noticeboard discussion.) Thank you.  --Whpq (talk) 10:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Talk:Lodderia eumorpha

message: This article was based on Powell A. W. B., New Zealand Mollusca, William Collins Publishers Ltd, Auckland, New Zealand 1979 . It has been revised on this date to eliminate a probable copyright violation of that book. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites 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, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. (For background on this situation, please see the related administrator's noticeboard discussion.) Thank you.  --Whpq (talk) 10:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Talk:Lodderia waitemata

message: This article was based on Powell A. W. B., New Zealand Mollusca, William Collins Publishers Ltd, Auckland, New Zealand 1979 . It has been revised on this date to eliminate a probable copyright violation of that book. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites 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, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. (For background on this situation, please see the related administrator's noticeboard discussion.) Thank you.  --Whpq (talk) 10:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Talk:Panda bonds

message: I dont see any content from 1911 Britannica! For something first issued in 1985, it seems rather odd, will delete notice. Justinc (talk) 08:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: from hostory, was vandalism, rolled back. Justinc (talk) 08:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Britannica?
Talk:European Community number

message: Checksum calculation formula
Can't find any examples) of EC# that would validate using the checksum digit calculation formula provided. Where this formula comes from? 
Shevelevs (talk) 16:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Three EC numbers are given in the article.  I added the names that go with them so that it would be clearer that they can be used as examples.  That the formula works can be verified by entering these numbers in the ESIS web site (it's listed in the External links).  On changing the check digit, I got the message, "EC# Not Found in ESIS."  This appears to validate the formula.  However, I find no official documentation on the web of the check-digit formula for EC numbers.  (It is documented by the European Commission for use in "index numbers" of chemicals.)  --Christopher King (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

text: But the formula does work.  I don't see the problem.  However, if two of you can't make the formula work, then an example is needed.  I'll revert your removal and add an example calculation.--Christopher King (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

message: I stumbled over some EC numbers used, but according to checksum formula are not valid:
417-650-1 : (cas: 88128-57-8) : 1,3-Dioxane,2-(3-chloropropyl)-2,5,5-trimethyl 
415-180-1 : (cas: 773058-82-5) : mono-2-[2-(4-dibenzo[b,f][1,4]thiazepin-11-yl)piperazinium-1-yl]ethoxy)ethanol trans-butenedioate
424-550-1 : (cas: 84245-12-5) : N-[6,9-dihydro-9-[[2-hydroxy-1-(hydroxymethyl)ethoxy]methyl]-6-oxo-1H-purin-2-yl]acetamide
Any idea's whats happening here?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.69.137.195 (talk) 07:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some EC numbers used, but not valid?
Talk:St Mary's Church, Widnes

message: The pulpit is listed as grade II? What the heck does that mean? 71.110.147.76 (talk) 17:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See listed building. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: In the notes, several citations are attributed to Diggle. But no more detail is given to allow me to track down the resource in question. AndyBQ (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies – my mistake.  Details added.  Thanks for pointing it out. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diggle