lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Jesselyn Radack

message: On 4 December 2020, an editor added a {Primary sources} template and 15 {Primary source inline} tags, with edit summary: "Massive amounts of original research here."
There was one previous discussion that focused on WP:BLPPRIMARY, which advises, 
I believe the newly tagged references do not pertain to personal assertions in Wikipedia's voice; rather, they support information stated by individuals within court documents. I request that  explain his objections to specific references, rather than tagging them all, so that I can address his concerns.
For now, I will remove the template and tags, pending consensus to the contrary. Please give me a chance to clean this up without cluttering the BLP with 15 identical "non-primary source needed" tags. NedFausa (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks . I am not specifically refering to BLP issues but general Wikipedia policy on primary sources and original research. Primary sources are obviously not proscribed on WP, hence tagging rather than removing, but we are urged to use them with caution and seek secondary sources where possible, because it is easy to misuse them (see WP:PRIMARY, which says "be cautious about basing large passages on them"). Several sections (e.g. "Congressional questions" has only one secondary source at the very end) rely almost exclusively on primary sources. Our policy (WP:OR says:  A very large part of this article is based 100% on primary sources such as court documents, we liberally use the article subjects own YouTube videos and blogposts without clearly attributing, and many of the secondary sources are rather weak (e.g. a college alumni magazine, which might be good for uncontroversial personal details but is it good for this sort of material?). There are places in the article where we basically state that the article is based on original research, e.g. . Or a citation to her YouTube video with the statement in our words  - we should not be making our own inferences but only citing other's inferences. So please do go ahead and try to clean this up, and I hope that there are secondary sources for the stuff we say in this article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary sources inline
Talk:Candomblé Ketu

message: Dead links removed and added appropriate english references on candomblé RodolfoVisconde (talk) 16:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrections on external links
Talk:Villeneuve-d'Ascq

message: First version of this text was apparently translated from :fr:Villeneuve d'Ascq ;-) Alibaba 21:38, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Extraneous dialogue
Talk:Calcflinta

message: Note: this article was speedily deleted while Snoyes was in the process of adding the vfd tag to it.  Therefore the page history has been lost.  The original edit was by User:81.153.40.187. -- Graham  :) | Talk 23:00, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

message: OK, so it apparantly was used in an archaic (1911) description of Scottish rocks. But, I have no clue what it is. A google search gives a couple hundred hits - the first 100 are to the wiki article, the list of rocks article or scores of mirrors & scams of wiki. No real definition or independent usage to be seen. Does anyone know what the term calcflinta was supposed to mean. Seems to have survived a deletion attempt earlier - why I don't know. Essentially meaningless term to me. I wait to be enlightened :-) Vsmith 00:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  But, what is it? 
Talk:Octillion

message: Made these changes:
1) Changed description from incorrect "one million million million million million" (1030) to correct "one thousand million million million million" (1027).
2) Remove assertion that nona- is an SI prefix. It is not.
3) Remove reference to nonabyte, not because nonabyte is disputed, but because there's no connection. Those who claim it to be an accepted term state that its value is 10249 which is not an octillion; it happens to be approximately 1.239 octillion. Dpbsmith 23:00, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Talk:Value types

message: I have some doubts about the mentioned value types. 
1) 
Indeed there are many types of values. Maybe there are even more than thousand different value types. We are usually lazy to think of so many types so we just mention the most obvious ones:
1) Ethical values
2) Aesthetical values
3) Economical values 
To which of the mentioned types in the article would you add the economical values?
2)
Doctrine (Political, ideological, religious or social beliefs and values - This can be seen as a subcategory of ethical values)
I don’t see why a doctrine should be a subcategory of ethical values? In my point of view, for any type of value you can have a doctrine. f.e. Lets believe in: Jesus Christ was a handsome man! Would this not be an aesthetical doctrine? 
In general I would not characterise doctrine as a type of value. Maybe "form of value" would be a better notion.
The same could be said about the “inborn values”; only I don’t exactly understand how you mean it with the inborn values? Could you please give an example of an inborn value?
3)
Numeral (a quantitative value, constant, or variable)
This is a good point. In mathematics for example we speak about the value of a constant or a variable. This value can’t be ethical, aesthetical or economical. It is simply a mathematical value of a constant or a variable. This is because mathematics operates in general terms. 
However, mathematics does not exist only for its own sake. If mathematics is used in economics, values of variables will stand for economical values. If we use algebra to describe an ethical system values of variables will stand for ethical values. 
(I am currently working on my thesis about axiology and its impacts to economics. Please feel free to write me an e-mail if you are also interested in this topic or look for prospect postgaduate students ) 
Thanks in advance,
Patrick B.
( pbs@centrum.sk )
PBS 23:00, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Value types
Talk:De Administrando Imperio

message: Up to this version the article content was based on 
De Administrando Imperio by Constantine Porphyrogenitus, edited by Gy. Moravcsik and translated by R. J. H. Jenkins, Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies, Washington D. C., 1993
which is the latest and greatest Moravcsik-Jenkins work. Why to replace it by some 1967 edition in the Sources section?
If the article is based on the best edition-translation what use of mentioning some efforts made by almost anonymous Croats in 1910 and 1931?
Then what use of mentioning Kreutz and Zivkovic if these two authors are touching only a very narrow part of the book content?
At the end, proposal: If someone wants to talk about Serbs and Croats history as given in the DAI, let him write a new article, DAI and Serbs and Croats. Then Zivkovic and Ferjancic, Manojlović  and Hauptmann could come in play as authors.--178.223.72.121 (talk) 21:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Serbian and Croatian enthusiasts of their own respective national history use DAI as a coveted sacramental source to prove that one are more important and real as a group than the others.--౪ Santa ౪99° 03:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few questions 

message: Sometimes, the name is abbreviated as DAI. --Wisdood (talk) 14:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  DAI
Talk:Kennington tube station

message: There's a 1920s drawing of Kennnington linked from here (Geocities doesn't seem to like links direct to the images). Searching Google groups for "kennington" throws up some relevant threads, too. --rbrwrˆ —Preceding undated comment added 23:33, 20 March 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Kennington tube station hasn't had building works on it since at least Sep 05. couldnt someone upload a new pic?--Macca7174 11:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture needs updating 

message: Now that the Battersea branch has opened, whilst it does not show it on the Tube Map, on just a line diagram for the Northern Line it sill shows there is a limited service between the Charig Cross branch and the Morden branch. I presume this is in the peak time. Should this be (re)added to the article? Difficultly north (talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 17:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charing Cross to Morden
Talk:University of California

message: The  section of this page can be misleading. The sentence "For the university known as California, see University of California, Berkeley" mentions that UC Berkeley is also known as "California", which is not true; I therefore recommend that this line be deleted, or changed to "For its first campus, see University of California, Berkeley". I also recommend that the part about California State University be put into a  statement. Windywendi (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Cal-Berkeley is widely known as "California", particularly where its athletics are concerned, so that part of thge about section makes perfect sense. —C.Fred (talk) 00:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, I am not really into sports so I have no idea. Windywendi (talk) 00:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to change the "About" section 

message: I'm going to remove the improper references to "library systems" in the article.  As most UC alumni are aware, one of UC's traditions is referring to the "Library" at each campus even when the "Library" is physically organized into multiple libraries. Thus, UC Berkeley Library and UCLA Library. Coolcaesar (talk) 05:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Library system? 

message: To give everyone a heads up: Later this year, I'm planning to add an endnote to the articles on the University of California and the California State University, using the efn tag, and with appropriate citations to both universities' brand guidelines, to note the style difference on the issue of whether definite articles are mandatory with the initialisms UC and CSU.  For example, the official University of California web site consistently refers to "UC" with no definite article, while the official California State University web site consistently refers to "the CSU" with a definite article. Then I will edit both articles to follow those conventions.  Any objections? Coolcaesar (talk) 06:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do we need to tell readers about this at all? It seems trivial. ElKevbo (talk) 14:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planning to add an endnote to note the style difference between UC and CSU on definite articles 

message: My edit adding information stating that UC Berkeley is the flagship campus of the system was reverted, so I figured I'd take it to the talk page for more opinions. I think it should be added because it is the original "University of California," and it has been referred to as the flagship by themselves and a variety of independent sources. BhamBoi (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this may be directed at you. ElKevbo (talk) 23:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like input from editors other than myself and the person who reverted me. Do you have any thoughts on the matter? BhamBoi (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  List Berkeley as the flagship campus?
Talk:Gemini 3

message: The article says Gemini 3 was the ninth manned American flight, but the first in the Gemini series.  There were only six manned Mercury flights, so Gemini 3 would have been the seventh.  Were there other manned flights between Mercury and Gemini?  I don't think so.  The X-15 reference may be technically accurate, but confusing in context.  --- BT, 0005 UTC 25 Aug 2005
:I wrote the intro, but a long time ago. From memory, they do include X-15 flights. I did this because it saves the hassle of saying we can't include X-15 flights, and then having people say that we shouldn't include the suborbital Mercury flights then. Evil Monkey∴Hello 00:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ninth? 

message: --98.217.32.79 (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gemini 3 patch 

message: The article on Mercury-Atlas 10 says that "the mission would have carried a re-entry communications experiment, which involved injecting water into the plasma sheath surrounding the spacecraft on reentry, in the hope that it would disrupt the sheath enough to allow radio communications; this was later flown on Gemini 3". There's no mention of it here. Did it work? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 22:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Water Injection
Talk:1996 Taiwanese presidential election

message: I propose a new version of the infobox map series in all of the Taiwan presidential elections, as I view there are flaws that do not reflect the nature of Taiwanese politics, especially where third-party candidates (or third-placed candidates) have more visibility and have shown to be able to garner a higher vote share than in countries such as the US, and even lead in township-level units (as is the case in the 2000 and 2016 elections, and in county-level units here). Comparing only the top-two tickets creates an illusion that Taiwan is strictly a two-party system. Shading the township-level units by vote lead also skews the display towards heavily-populated areas. A few proposals on how to fix this:
1. Displaying just the county-level results in the infobox (pros: simple, easy to understand; cons: creates an illusion of a federal system though the French election page also uses it)
2. Displaying the township-level vote share (cons: skews results towards large jurisdictions)
3. Fixing the current set of maps by showing instead the vote difference between leader and runner-up in the township-level units
Tjs2012 (talk) 18:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information on infobox map
Talk:Kilsyth

message: Heck, I wrote this stuff, so it it is my copyright to give away!
rob , webmaster, www.Kilsyth.org.uk
: OK. Evercat 01:54, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Confirmed via email now. Evercat 02:07, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: No subject

message: Kilsyths in Australia, Canada, and 2 in the USA. 
I have moved this to Kilsyth (disambiguation), anyone care to update it with specifics? --Chuq 04:55, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Kilsyth's
Talk:Winton Motor Carriage Company

message: There is a discrepency as to the first auto purchased in the United States. The Duryea Comapny was formed to build and sell gasoline powered automobiles in June or July 1895. The first auto race in the US was held on November 28, 1895 and was won by a Duyrea racing model. In 1896 the company manufactured and sold 13 vehicles to the public two years before Winton's first sale according to the current article. These differed somewhat from the previous winning vehicle. In addition, Henry Ford built his Quadricycle in 1896 and sold this almost immediately for $200. The Stanley Steam Car Company produced their first car in 1897. "The new mechanical wagon with the awful name automobile has come to stay..." New York Times (1897 article).
This does not even take into account the product of the European manufacturers whose product was imported into the US.
[url]http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aaautomobilenameorigin.htm[/url]
There are articles which state that Winton sold the first US vehicle, however Duryea was in production in 1896, it would be hard to believe they didn't sell any in 2.5 years. In addition Ford sold his first vehicle the Quadricycle. Ransome E Olds was making steam, electric and gas powered vehicles since 1890. It would be hard to believe he didn't sell any before he started a company to produce autos in quantity.
Wired Magazine article claims Winton had first automobile advertisement.Samatva (talk) 03:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: A user (72.152.187.33) added this comment: "This may be questionable in that it is noted that the first automobile advertisement was in Scientific American for the Winton Automobile dated July 30, 1898." in regard to this statement in the 1898 section:
*On March 24, 1898 Robert Allison of Port Carbon, Pennsylvania became one of the first persons to buy an American-built automobile when he bought a Winton after seeing an advertisement in Scientific American.
I think his point is that this page Wired Magazine article says the first auto ad was in july, but the 1898 section claims that a car was purchased as a result of an ad in march. Something isn't quite right. I added a citation needed tag to the fact on the page. HornColumbia (talk) 04:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact check
Talk:Time constant

message: J = moment of inertia
f = rotational friction coefficient
Two stator coils with each nst sinusoidal distributed windings
Two rotor coils with each nrot sinusoidal distributed windings
The angle between the coils is 90 degrees.
Two voltage sources applied on the stator, the angle between the voltages
is 90 degrees.
Ust = effective value of each stator voltage
fst = stator frequency
ωst = 2πfst =  angular stator frequency
Two external rotor resistances, each Rrot
Time constant = J/(f+2(Ust/ωst)^2/Rrot')
with Rrot'= Rrot(nst/nrot)^2
Starting from zero the motor speed remains constant after a time 5*(time constant).
Martin Segers (talk) 08:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Time constant in a two-phase asynchronous motor model

message: I believe that the statement that the exponential functions describe the rise and fall of the action potential is false.
I was under the impression that those particular expressions describe only the response of an ideal specially uniform cell without any voltage gated ion channels to a current injection.
For a reference take a look at Purves et al. Chapter three Box C
--Dylan2106 (talk) 23:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The passive membrane properties of a cell are modeled by a simple RC circuit, hence why tau = RC--Dylan2106 (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha, that reference is available online --Dylan2106 (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time constant in electrophysiology 

message: Hello, I'm doubting whether the statement of the differential equation as written in the article
\frac{dV}{dt} + \frac{1}{\tau} V = f(t)
is correct.  Should this not be
\tau \frac{dV}{dt} + V = f(t)
or in other words
\frac{dV}{dt} = \frac{1}{\tau} (f(t) - V)
I'm not sure that the differential equation as written in the article (the first one listed above) integrates to the correct solution.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:1000:7200:4419:426B:1992:A8BF (talk) 00:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differential equation
Talk:Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire

message: "Most of the victims were recent Italian and Jewish immigrants" is confusing. For example, would Italian Jewish women be counted twice? Suggestion that victims should be listed in the article by one classification (e.g. "recent European immigrants"). Lexlex (talk) 07:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't overthink it  The vast majority of Italian immigrants were Catholic and not Jewish. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: So the line should be changed to: "Most of the victims were recent Catholic and Jewish immigrants"? Lexlex (talk) 11:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it should not.  They were Italian and Jewish, that was their ethnicities, Judaism being both a religion and an ethnicity. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you mean "Italian" used here refers to ethnicity and not place of origin? If so, I would argue it fails WP:Relevance. (e.g. Why not also list their shoe sizes and favorite foods?) Lexlex (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Attempt to combine victims by origin country and ethnic/religious affiliation is unclear

message: Under Pop Culture references, someone should add:
In Season 6, Episode 1 (Omaha) of Veep, character Salina Myer says "I mean, whose balls did I twerk to end up here in Triangle Shirtwaist offices--I mean seriously, this is the worst place they've ever stuck an ex-president and I am including JFK's coffin." Mbsearles (talk) 18:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a reliable source for that? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 21:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I watched it today and re-ran it until I got the words exactly right. But I don't have anything I can cite. Mbsearles (talk) 00:40, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't really matter, it's a trivial reference and probably shouldn't be added at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:05, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Veep reference
Talk:Cardinal tetra

message: Reverted pasted text from neon tetra article -- there's no need to duplicate text exactly between articles, and such cut & paste looks unprofessional... Tkinias 03:53, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The section talking about the reasons some support the trade of wild-caught tetras sounds like it came from an opinion article, there has to be a better way of conveying that information--71.75.112.35 18:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  possible bias 

message: Someone has irresponsibly edited this article so that it now only says
"The pikachu, electric, is a forest mouse of the characin family (family Characidae) of order Characiformes. It is native to the upper Orinoco and Negro Rivers in South America.
he eats". 
I do not know enough about Cardinal Tetras to completely recreate this article, and so I just wanted to make anyone who did, or at least could recover the previous article, aware of this so that this article can return to its formal state. Whilst I am a devout fan of the Pokémon franchise, this article now makes no sense, and is completely irrelevant to the subject of Cardinal Tetras, not to mention that the grammar is appalling! Thank you for your time.--Aquakeeper14 (talk) 21:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Abuse 

message: Where does this statement come from, especially because you indirectly state this to be global? As an aquarist myself I know many breeders who actually prefer wild caught. And most of my my colleagues prefer wild caught cardinal tetra's because of low quality captive-bred specimens. If there is no good reference added soon, I will remove that part.Jarne Colman (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and am going to change it now. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Prefering captive bred
Talk:First Battle of Gaza

message: What actually happened and why is buried under a mountain of minor "facts". Needs simplyfying into the main what, why, how to make it meaningful and readable. Rcbutcher (talk) 09:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Gday, yes I agree with that. User:RoslynSKP has been one of the main contributors; however, they are currently no longer active (in this field at least). Anotherclown (talk) 09:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Too many words, too much detail

message: I'm reluctant to mess with it while it's on the front page but...
:"during the first attempt by the Egyptian Expeditionary Force (EEF), which was a British Empire military formation, formed on 10 March 1916 under the command of General Archibald Murray from the Mediterranean Expeditionary Force and the Force in Egypt (1914–15), at the beginning of the Sinai and Palestine Campaign of the First World War" - during the first attempt to do what? The sentence wanders off into an explanation of the EEF and appears to have lost its object? KJP1 (talk) 11:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does the first sentence of the lead actually make sense? 

message: This odd expression presumably refers to the five cities of Philistia. Mporter (talk) 04:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Five cities of the Palestine Alliance"