lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Dag Hammarskjöld

message: This Article could be improved in a few ways. Firstly their is not much written about his actual career as a diplomat, arguably the reason why he is famous. I notice that the section about his death is longer than the section about his career as UN General Secretary, a pretty important job. He was a prominent person in the height of the Cold War and could be seen as a mediator between Khrushchev and Kennedy, and yet none of that is explored here.
Another thing I noticed is there are sections of this article that stray off topic. For example there is a section where it just states roads and landmarks that are named after him. This is not exactly an important part of Hammarskjold's legacy. 
There is also a general need for citations in all sections of this article.Dan.herrick11791 (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for improvement 

message: This new Guardians story RAF veteran ‘admitted 1961 killing of UN secretary general’ may be of interest. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "RAF veteran ‘admitted 1961 killing" 

message: In his 2014 memoirs "A Life of Blood and Danger", a semi-famous (but still redlinked) US soldier recounts a meeting with his superior where he strongly implies that during his tenure in the Katanga region he provided the "Land Rover engine block bomb" used in the assassination; in Hill's own telling, this is confirmed by such an engine being on the plane's cargo manifest, while in James B. Stewart's telling, Hill merely 'suspected a bomb'.
This is one of many incredible claims in the book; among them, that he was granted leave from occupied Germany to pay his respects to Otto Skorzeny in Spain, and that he was sent to infiltrate the FLN in Algeria shortly before being sent on to Katanga. But the level of detail he gives about the construction of the bomb, and the fact that a reliable source corroborates at least that he was in the region at the time, makes it a bit more compelling.
In light of the 2021 reporting on OAS involvement, hoping this comment summons a competent expert to direct us to some reputable secondary sources 🙏🙏
2600:1702:6D1:28B0:81D7:A054:BA0B:10E0 (talk) 04:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a street in Stockholm named after Dag.  It is located in Östermalm, near the Israeli embassy 50.58.99.184 (talk) 13:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daniel J. Hill / US involvement
Talk:Koch (boat)

message: I suggest the title should be spelled Kotch, by analogy with "ketch" or "catch".  This would be unambiguously pronounced коч.  The way it is spelled now suggests that it is pronounced кох. Freederick (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That is correct. It's pronounced [kotʃ]. 217.118.93.95 (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kotch 
Talk:Ranjan Madugalle

message: but a career-ending knee injury to Ashantha de Mel gave him the chance again, and he seized it with a Test 60 against New Zealand.
This is an odd sentence - de Mel was a bowler, Madugalle a batsman Tintin
:Oops. Dunno how that happened - bad research :) I'll try to correct it now Sam Vimes 06:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I have removed the Mr Coconut references, as per WP:BLP it is uncited and potentially quite libelous. If there are citations, feel free to re-add with them. SGGH speak! 09:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coconut
Talk:Pemoline

message: Wow... somebody messed up. They placed a link on this page linking to the "official site" of Pemoline. Pemoline is a generic name for a drug.... how can an "offical" site exist? That's like the "Official site" of A.S.A., it makes no sense. (Even if they register a clever domain!)  I have to wonder what information they provide when they make a claim like that. I replaced the link with a link to the product monograph. -WH
I wanted to point out, in the article it says it does not cause the loss of appetite that other stimulants do? Well, I took Pemoline from 6 years of age up until 13, and besides putting me in the hurt bag psycologically (which is why I am against giving these drugs to children now), it almost completely suppressed my appetite. In fact, up until I stopped taking it, I was relatively thin. After I ceased taking it, I gained almost 200 pounds over the course of about 3 years and also started to struggle with depression disorders and other mental health disturbances. The fact that a doctor could still find a way to circumvent the FDA recommendation that it not be prescribed on 'sympathetic grounds' is not only appalling, but baffling.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.156.69 (talk) 02:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Boehm garbage collector

message: I just wanted to say, the intro para to this article is spectacular. Hits all the important points with excellent brevity. Good job. Deco 06:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good intro 

message: Please somebody could add some c++ object orited code using GC? It is basic.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.108.215.226 (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  C++ 

message: The sample code for C uses GC_MALLOC_ATOMIC. Can someone explain why it uses an atomic malloc vs nonatomic? It seems like this would be an interesting gotcha as (I believe) malloc() is an atomic operation.
:GC_malloc_atomic allocates memory that will not be scanned for pointers. Kind of a funny name, but... 2001:4830:1100:235:0:0:0:2 (talk) 02:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atomic malloc?
Talk:Milton Resnick

message: A comment from a life-long friend of Milton and Pat.
I am objecting to the phrase "and his onetime wife and lifelong companion, the painter Pat Passlof."  What is a  "one-time wife"? Pat  was Milton's wife and his life-long companion. 
Denise Lassaw
Point well taken. Fixed. cbustapeck 19:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Geoffrey Dorfman (Milton Resnick scholar) has provided a rewrite for the Milton Resnick article, as the current article is currently under investigation for potential copyright issue. The new article is in lieu of the former article under investigation.
Sdansberger (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Article rewrite
Talk:World Music Award

message: I don't believe the artists that they honor is such a high position, really deserve to be given such a crown. Yes, they deserve recognition but not titles such as "BEST SELLING ARTIST OF ALL TIME". I find it hard to swallow that Michael Jackson (Yes, I understand he is MASSIVE) can wear this crown over Elvis Presley and same for Mariah Carey (Big again) I can't see on earth how she was given the crown over Madonna or Celion Dion. Another unusual thing is the fact that if you go by the offical site and use it to find how to contact the World Music Awards, most of the address that come up are hotmail adresses???? So unprofessional!
I trust much more prestigous music associations and especially the one and only Grammys. Plus I've never heard of the World Music Awards, until I search for a list of music awards shows.
:Oh don't worry you are not alone in this thinking. Beside the fact that it's stupid to award the best selling (aren't sales enough for them?), the criteria is ludicrous to say the least, not to mention the "best selling of all time". There are several artists that have never been audited by the association and therefore never sold anything according to them, or very little. For example many know that Motown Records' founder Berry Gordy refused to have the records audited and therefore for example Diana Ross or Diana Ross and The Supremes are never mentioned officially when talking about sales, but we all know they sold MUCH MUCH more than Destiny's Child, whose "Best Selling group of all time" award is a pure fantasy. And the fact that you cannot trace back or find historic information about this so-called show should be a clue.
Then, if you take into consideration the fact that most companies report "sales" as units shipped, which is a totally different thing.......... Such an award should be banned until you can actually trust the sources. For example, even the most selling artist of all time (Beatles or Elvis) are debated over, Madonna as well, ABBA ...you name it. 62.2.236.130 13:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't think the World Music Awards are 100% accurate
Talk:Entoptic phenomenon

message: They cannot be directly shown to others, hence they are subjective. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The full comment was this: "This gives them a certain subjective and mysterious quality." "Mysterious" is certainly POV. All perception is subjective, but what is "a subjective quality"? Sure, you can't directly experience my entoptic phenomenon, but I can take you into the lab and show you all the entoptic phenomenon listed so that you can see them for yourself. It's an unnecessary comment in the article. AED 01:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calling them "subjective" is not POV 

message: éndon and entós both mean "within" and were used as locative prepositions (as well as en). Thus entoptic seems to be a valid blend (cf. entoderm, Entamoeba, etc.) although admittedly I don't find any natural Ancient Greek terms that used "endo-" or "ento-" as a prefix (all used "en-" as a locative as well as a  lative prefix). (Don't confuse "éndon" with "endo-", the Old Latin prefix.) ṓps means "eye", ōpós being the genitive and ōp- the word stem, rendering -opic a valid alternative (cf. Cyclop, myopic etc.), albeit a rarer one.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.127.158.126 (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entoptic vs endoptic vs entopic
Talk:Randomization

message: After not being on Wiki for a while, I clicked on "Random article" and got this.  Hooray! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naif (talk • contribs) 07:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Random fact

message: I just created Random number generation, some elements of this page could be moved there.
Randomization is about taking elements and putting them in random order (i.e. shuffling) (or maybe also selecting a random subset), generating random numbers is about just creating numbers at random. The two processes are fairly equivalent.
I don't want to merge this page over there, but the scope of this article could be made more narrow. Flammifer 09:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Random number generation
Talk:Betty Wright

message: I question this bit When R&B group Color Me Badd released their huge hit, "I Wanna Sex You Up", in 1991, it generated controversy because the sample from "Tonight is the Night" hadn't been cleared; Wright soon took the band to court for royalties and was awarded 30% percent of royalties for the song.:  usually it's the labels that own the copyright on the music, not the musicians.  Tuwa.baab 07:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Wild claims of superhumanly wide vocal range are common, and usually baseless. Unless there's a proper secondary source, explicitly itemizing where (what recordings) the top and bottom notes of this claimed range are, and exactly what notes they are, I will delete the claim.  Surely, she has a very wide vocal range, but six octaves is an extraorinary claim and requires proof  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Six octave range 

message: She also had a gospel group called Revelation S.E.E.D. 2607:FEA8:10E0:1C00:B4D5:B0D4:3D5D:BBA1 (talk) 23:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Revelation S.E.E.D.
Talk:Cambot

message: The article currently contains the following line:
:From time to time, the characters on the show would interact with Cambot in a Brechtian fashion.
Unfortunately, the link to Bertolt Brecht does not provide a direct explanation of this statement. Its "Theory of theatre" section talks about the Verfremdungseffekt ("defamiliarization effect"), which apparently discourages audiences from becoming too involved with the fictional world, but not knowing Brecht's works, I don't see a clear connection. It would help to have a specific example and/or a clearer explanation of what is meant by this. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's silly anyway; Cambot is clearly identified as a character in the programme, and the cast's interactions with him are consistent with the show's fictional continuity. It would be more accurate to say that e.g. "the characters on the show would address the audience in a fashion described by NOTABLE SOURCE as Brechtian REFERENCE", although this wouldn't really belong in the article on Cambot, even assuming such a source could be found. The irony is that Mystery Science Theatre 3000 is a superb, multi-level example of the "Verfremdungseffekt", but perhaps because it is a comedy programme no notable sources seem to have picked up on this. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 17:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brechtian interaction 

message: Isn't it Cambot who's recording Mike and the bots in the apartment, like usual?Thanos6 05:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a very good question! It's a shame that the show doesn't quite answer it. Or perhaps it does: "Just repeat to yourself, 'It's just a show'…". I'm afraid we can only speculate, since the theme song itself points out the limitations of real-world logic in fathoming these matters. If only Mike had said something about (or to!) Cambot… ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final episode 

message: Cambot seems pretty niche in terms of notability, I'm just suggesting. Volvlogia (talk) 01:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability
Talk:Cuyo, Palawan

message: We seriously need to clean up this article. --Ed558 (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs cleanup 
Talk:Speed prior

message: I'm a bit confused about this article.
I took out :
:and provokes unusual prophecies concerning the future of our universe.
... because it seems damn unencyclopedic.
I've reworked it a bit but I'm not sure of what I'm talking about.
I also took out
:Occam's Razor says: prefer simple solutions to complex ones. But what exactly does "simple" mean? According to tradition something is simple if it has a short description or program, that is, it has low Kolmogorov complexity. This leads to Ray Solomonoff's  and Leonid Levin's algorithmic probability measure which yields optimal though noncomputable predictions, given past observations.  
.. because it's slightly off topic (in my opinion). Flammifer 08:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Ark Angel

message: Could someone carry on with the plot? I will add some, but it is a lot of plot. Thelb4, 8:20, 20 August 2005
:There's too much and it's only just started. I think we need to move this to wikibooks. APclark 20:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So I just copy it out of Ark Angel, paste it into wikibooks, then remove it from Ark Angel on Wikipedia? Thelb4 21:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, just the plot (and obviously, put in a short description of what happens in the book). APclark 17:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: i just put in another warning on the plot for that you sumarized the entire book instead of just the plot... just tying to help... and ill try to help with moving it to wikibooks...Cyborg999 18:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The plot

message: After shortening the plot numerous times (while retaining necessary plot points), I think I've finally hit the nail on the head. I don't believe the plot requires any more changes, at least at the moment.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.199.160 (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot length 
Talk:Barbara Nitke

message: Taking out the NCFS press release quote because of copyvio is just weird.  A press release is almost by definition released with an authorization for unrestricted copying.  An quote from it, even in its entirety, is therefore automatically fair use.  That's why it's called a press release.
It the editor doesn't want it stylistically, I have no strong opinion, but copyvio isn't a reason to take it out. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus, if you're going to remove a copyvio, you should remove the entire thing and not just a portion of it. But, as Lulu said, nobody in their right mind would copyright a press release - that would defy the whole concept of a press release. The intent is that you want the content reproduced as often as possible. I think the quote adds to the article as it adds a human dimension. --Outlander 18:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No copyvio on press release 
Talk:Battle of the Downs

message: I've reverted again since none of the Dutch sources makes mention of lost Dutch ships other then one that got entangled with the Santa Teresa . Catsclaw 11:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dutch losses 

message: The number of Dutch ships is put at 95, which was only at the very end. The Spanish numbers are put at their very lowest. Doesn't seem very fair. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Misleading infobox
Talk:Liberal People's Party (Norway, 1972)

message: Hi all,
I suggest merging the two articles as there is some ideal continuity between the two parties (the new one was founded by members of the old one), enough to justify one article treating both. The new one can be seen as a refoundation.
The Norwegian Wikipedias (in bokmål and nynorsk) have each one article only for the party. --Orzetto 08:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would disagree with a merger. Many former DLF members remained in Venstre and there is a different political orientation. Legally there is no continuation. It is better to keep separate articles. Electionworld 09:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, also other parties experience modifications in their politics, but keep an article. True, there is no legal continuity between the two, but the second was founded by members of the first. It would be also difficult to point to English translations from the Norwegian Wikipedias, since they have only one page each: which should they point in the English version? And, lastly, the current names are quite ugly. --Orzetto 08:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest keeping two separate articles, Liberal People's Party (Norway, 1972) and Liberal People's Party (Norway, 1992). --Soman 17:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Keep the articles separate. They are still separate parties. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I strongly urge to keep the articles separate. The party that was started in 1992 has very little in common with the original party apart from the name. I have heard the claim that it was started by members of the old party, but haven't seen any confirmation of this. The members of the old DLF that I have spoken with are certainly quite appalled by the use of their old name by this new party. (Barend 18:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:On Horsemanship

message: I've read this book, and will attempt to do better justice to it than this.  Xenophon was a little early in history to deal with Lipizzaners, don't you think?  At least 1400 years or so too early :) --Domhail 08:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, though it's sort of a line-by-line analysis. Where Xenophon's descriptions are used, "he" for people probably has to be kept.  However, in horse articles, I tend to move to gender-neutral terms like "the" for horses unless it's clear that only a gelding or stallion is used.  Mares ARE ridden too -- and in some cultures (like the Bedouin) almost exclusively so. Montanabw(talk) 23:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Forty five minutes into this episode of Australian national radio's Bush Telegraph the presenter, historian Michael Cathcart says, "Dear listener, if you're interested in persuing Xenophon, there is actually  a fantastic Wikipedia site that basically sumarises On Horsemanship, and it's well worth reading. I was reading it last night; it's incredibly illuminating." --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Praise

message: This page contains a mass of content apparently derived from the book itself, with no hint of a reference. Without sources it appears to be nothing but original research. Unless it is cited to independent reliable sources in the fairly near future, I plan to remove it, perhaps replacing it with a skeleton outline of the content of the book. Any objections? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced content
Talk:Charles O'Hea

message: I haven't been able to turn up anything about when Fr O'Hea was born or died.  Everytime I think I have, it turns out to be just another reference to bloody Ned Kelly.  Anyone got any clue?  Or know where it can be found? --fuddlemark 09:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Wilhelm Röntgen

message: The poll conclusion above says that there is "some consensus" for Wilhelm Rontgen, but I don't see that anyone has favoured this spelling without an umlaut. In German the preferred spelling is Röntgen with an umlaut. The alternate spelling, often used in English, is Roentgen in which "oe" is considered equivalent to "ö". So either of these two would be acceptable, but NOT Rontgen. One must either retain the German umlaut, or else insert an e to replace the umlaut. Dirac66 (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: my bad. fixed above. --RegentsPark (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Röntgen or Roentgen, but never Rontgen

message: There is nothing here about Röntgen's parentage or early life.  Was he any relation to Abraham and David Roentgen, the cabinetmakers?  Kostaki mou (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any relation to the cabinetmakers? 

message: If Mr Roentgen was born to a German father and a Dutch mother and lived in the Netherlands why is he not presented as a Dutch-German scientist? 
I really don't see why archaic nationality laws should play a role in how a contemporary encyclopedia defines the nationality of a person.
Also, there is a difference between nationality and citizenship. It puzzles me why we decide to erase the national legacy of the female parent. 71.93.115.97 (talk) 03:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Compare 'Wilhelm Röntgen "German physicist"' to 'Wilhelm Röntgen "Dutch-German physicist"'. Other nationalities are not mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationality 

message: they married in 72 she did not die then but in 1919, the source is even correct the citation is wrong. 2003:F2:772A:5E44:B19F:4B12:8049:B8E6 (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  His wife