lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Unplugged (Eric Clapton album)

message: The once exiting online certification database from NVPI showed that Eric Clapton's Unplugged was certified 4-times Platinum for sales more than 400,000 copies in the Netherlands. Now, Eric Clapton Collector re-posted a good-source photograph showing a 2-times Platinum certification for the album for sales more than 200,000 copies in the country. You can see the official NVPI label, you can read the text and see the whole award very clearly. It is a valid source, right? NVPI Unplugged Certification
Cheers --178.11.213.55 (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dutch Certification 

message: See Disc Two credits.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.54.50.216 (talk) 07:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different Writers For "Walkin' Blues"???
Talk:Conrad Russell, 5th Earl Russell

message: Shouldn't this be at Conrad Russell, 5th Earl Russell? Proteus (Talk) 19:37, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I though that hereditary titles had been abolished now? Dunc|☺ 20:19, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, only the right of (most) hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords. --rbrwr± 21:28, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  6th Earl Russell 

message: "Russell's expectation that he would succeed Michael Howard as Regius Professor of History at the University of Oxford was unfulfilled, partly because of doubts long-held in the university about his scholarship and partly because his political partisanship made him unacceptable for such a prestigious post." This may or may not be accurate, but it is strongly expressed and unsourced and comes across as (slightly malicious) academic gossip. Should it be removed? 45ossington (talk) 08:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged doubtful scholarship and political partisanship
Talk:Nemo

message: Would anyone of those adding the last point of the list be so nice as to say in what  story that character appears?  -- towo 15:03, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
'Nemo' is also the answer Odysseus gives the Cyclope in Homer's 'Odyssee' when being asked his name.
(I leave, however, adding that (in my opinion important) information to someone who's more familiar with the wiki-structure than I am...)
Hmm, yes, as far as I know, Ulysses is the original Nemo of Western fiction. - Logotu (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last entry
Talk:Strap It On

message: *All song titles serve as redirects to this album, have their own pages, or have been placed at the appropriate disambiguation pages.--Hraefen Talk 22:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''<^>v!!This album is connected!!v<^>'''

message: *Comment If Strap It On (AC/DC album) is deleted, then this move should definately go ahead. Otherwise, I guess the move could go ahead and at the top of the article, place a disambiguation link to the AC/DC album (the one that may or may not exist yet) --Lox (t,c) 21:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that Strap It On (AC/DC album) has been deleted, this move should definately go ahead! --Lox (t,c) 14:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody moved the page, so i will. No-Bullet 01:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, i got an error message: "The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move." Tomorrow i'll put the page in WP:RM. No-Bullet 02:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The move did go ahead, but then later some S&M person wanted to use "Strap It On" for something (you can imagine), so it became a disambig page and the Helmet album article got moved to Strap It On (album), where it has remained. An administrator later deleted the alternate usage, and Strap It On became a simple redirect to Strap It On (album). It's a perfectly fine location for the article, so I didn't bother requesting yet another page move and also didn't feel like updating all the linking pages. Please don't go ahead with your request unless you want to fix all the links. Thanks.—Lazytiger 19:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move from [[Strap It On (Helmet album)]] to [[Strap It On]]

message: What does FBLA stand for? (track 5's title)--Kfanciulli (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: FBLA

message: Strèpito in Italian means "noise". "Strèp It On".
Now solve the anagram "Stewe Alboni".
And Sinatra is the best song on the album imho.
Syncopated powerchord riffs will excite you for a few years,
but afterwards you'll get the need for better arrangements.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.143.79.134 (talk) 16:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strèpito
Talk:Restorative justice

message: As of Oct 18, 2023, mousing over the links to Restorative Justice, Retributive Justice, and Participatory justice show a picture of "Vomit on Plate" (according to the filename). This is likely vandalism, but I'm unsure how to remove said thumbnail image.  
2001:5A8:4283:BC00:6335:D3F2:DDF6:46EB (talk) 05:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: On which page & sections do you see this? I do not see links to Participatory justice in this article, & the single link to Retributive justice does not seem to demonstrate this behavior. We need more specifics. Peaceray (talk) 05:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the quick response! I'll try to provide as much information as possible: OS: Ubuntu 22.04 Desktop, Browser: Firefox (Private Tab). Screenshot showing behavior user (me) sees on the navigation pop-up here (Imgur, NSFW Warning). Screenshots show this behavior appears on both the talk page and on the "Criminology and Penology" sidebar. Screenshots were taken after user disabled all browser add-ons and cleared history / cookies / cache ("Everything" option was selected for "Time Range to Clear"). Issue was reproduced on user's laptop running Ubuntu, 22.04. Please let me know what other information I can provide - 2001:5A8:4283:BC00:6335:D3F2:DDF6:46EB (talk) 05:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the templates included on those pages was briefly vandalized a few days ago. You will see these thumbnails disappear as the server cache updates. MrOllie (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: As of this morning, the thumbnail is back to normal. Thanks! 2001:5A8:4283:BC00:6335:D3F2:DDF6:46EB (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Vandalism
Talk:Latifundium

message: Where? 87.221.112.118 (talk) 21:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Latifundia in modern Italy?

message: "The Reconquista of Muslim territories in the Iberian Peninsula provided the Christian kingdoms with sudden extensions of land that they ceded to nobility and military orders to exploit as latifundia." Is is not simply the holder of the Roman latifundia that changes? Is there a redistribution of latifundia to peasant small holders at any point in the sequence Baetica=> Visigoths=>al-Andalus=>Christian Andalusia? When lands are "given", it is with the people that "belong" to it. --Wetman 04:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Landholding reassignments doubtful

message: Why is this article written in plural? We don't make an article called "forests", we make one called "forest". We don't make an article called "beaches", we make one called "beach". This article *should* be called "latifundium" and be written in singular. Anyone who disagrees?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.196.111.13 (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: plural?

message: I've put this section back. Some of its statements could be better supported, and it may be that its text would be better incorporated into the preceding "Ancient Rome" section, but I'll leave those matters to editors more knowledgeable about the subject. The simple deletion of the entire section by an anonymous IP with no reason given looked to me more like vandalism than a well-intentioned edit. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restored "Ancient Greece" section which had been deleted with no reason being given. 

message: The article implies that slave labor, on Latifundia, was more productive (tons of crops per laborer), than free labor, on (typically) smaller farms.  Inexpertly, Latifundia slave labor was exploited; their effective "wages" were below free-market levels; leaving Latifundia higher profits, compared to free labor.  Perhaps an expert could clarify, whether Latifundia labor productivity was actually higher... or merely profitability (due to the exploitation, of slave labor)? 24.56.197.47 (talk) 08:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: economic efficiency ?
Talk:Rail transit in Baltimore, Maryland

message: I agree that most of this material has now been duplicated elsewhere (none of those other pages existed when I created it lo those many years ago).  There are a lot of links back to it, though, so I would just request that anyone who deletes it fix those before deleting.  Thanks.  --Jfruh (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you even read what I just said?  I didn't argue with you ... I just wanted to remind you that if you're going to delete a page that many other pages link to, you should take responsibility for fixing those links so that they aren't broken. --Jfruh (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction...no MTA page on Wikipedia links here. I should know, I cleanup up them all. So...again...this page is comepletly useless. And I've alreadt taken complete responsibility by making a new template for the MTA cleaning up the mess in the other rail articles.Thx2005 18:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the point is that it should be replaced by a redirect to the MTA page, not just deleted.  Doing so still deletes all of its content, but redirects links to the new page, in case anyone tried linking to it again for some reason. --Jfruh (talk) 22:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Before you speedy delete...
Talk:Choreography

message: The Choreography (dance) article is not well-cited and IMO doesn't contain enough information to warrant a separate article, and a glance at the incoming links to this article suggest that a large number of them refer to dance choreography. Dance choreography is the main use of the term, and there is room to expand all of the other uses in this article in separate sections. A glance at the projects above shows that most of them are not even explained in this article.
 As an aside, I don't think that the archiving of earlier comments on this page serves any useful purpose, and the archive box just creates more clutter here, so is there any reason that they couldn't be retrieved and copied back onto the one page? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Klbrain (talk) 09:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge suggestion

message: — Assignment last updated by Cronacrab (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Theatre and Technology

message: — Assignment last updated by Ody.Sims (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: ARH 371_The TransAtlantic_Cross-Cultural Representations
Talk:Taroko National Park

message: So it's not named after the Truku aborigines? They have the same Chinese name. --Menchi 00:12, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming discussion 

message: From what I know, the name buluowan came from the aboriginal language, and was transliterated into 布洛灣. I think it's not wise to just translate it into English as Buluo Bay, its not a bay after all. It should stick to the aboriginal name.
Kc0616 10:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Buluo Bay?

message: There have recently been attemtps to replace this:
After the Empire of Japan's defeat in World War II, the Republic of China assumed control of Taiwan. 
with this:
After the Empire of Japan's defeat in World War II, in line with the Cairo Declaration signed by ROC President Chiang Kai-shek, Japan returned Taiwan to the Republic of China, as it had seized Taiwan from Ching China.
The latter paragraph is both less accurate and off-topic.  It is necessary to say that the ROC took over Taiwan to explain that ROC was able to undo the actions of the Empire of Japan.  However, the details of the take-over are not that important to this article.  Those details are well-covered elsewhere.  The latter paragraph is inaccurate because Japan did not return Taiwan to the Republic of China.  Japanese troops in Taiwan surrendered to the ROC, but no official return was made.  The ROC unilaterally declared a return, but that was an ROC statement, not a Japanese statement, so it is not accurate to say "Japan returned...".  In fact what happened was that in the absence of any powerful objection, the RoC assumed control.  This assumption of power was indeed in line with the Cairo Declaration, but the legality of the takeover (and there are plenty of arguments on both sides) is not really relevant to the topic of Taroko National Park.Readin (talk) 01:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  inaccurate and off topic 

message: Since the ROC government switched over to using hanyu pinyin in 2009 and presumably all the park's signs have since been amended to reflect the change, shall we do that to this article as well? Transphasic (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[tongyong pinyin]] / [[hanyu pinyin]] 
Talk:2600

message: Simplified stub, added stub msg, and ital. disambig. msg.  blankfaze | ♫ 04:13, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 2600 →  – The page "2600" should redirect to 3rd millennium#26th century. 176.88.28.90 (talk) 12:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 6 September 2021
Talk:General of the Armies

message: I believe General Ulysses S. Grant became a 6 star general/general of the armies after his 200th birthday. If this is incorrect, please notify me. 24.52.31.237 (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: nevermind. i found the part that said he was one. 24.52.31.237 (talk) 13:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not enough info 

message: The six-star general drawings which used to be on this article were not fakes.  I see they were deleted with a long talk about how they were concocted, drawn on a computer what have you.  The drawings were from the Army from around 1965, you could tell with the weathered and yellowed look that those were actual documents.  That should really be fixed as its a disservice to this article not to speak about the insignia debate that happened in the 60s where the Army actually did design a valid 6-star design.  Here is a link to what the drawings looked like, not the drawings themselves -   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.44.165.50 (talk) 10:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @130.44.165.50 - An image from eBay is not considered a WP:Reliable and WP:Verifiabile source. WP:Unpublished sources can also not be used. The Army would need to make the images readily accessible before they can be added to this article. Neovu79 (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Six star general drawings

message: :In December 2022, Congress authorized the president to posthumously appoint Ulysses S. Grant to the rank
Has he done so? Marnanel (talk) 15:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ulysses S Grant
Wikipedia talk:Offline reports/This page has a lot of red links

message: Very interesting list, but BTW, they are not "broken" links, they are just links to articles to be written. -- User:Docu
: Hmm .. trying to think up a better name for them .. unfulfilled links?  Potential links?  Void links ?  Please do suggest! ;)
::"Red links" (?). As long as they are mainly lists, it's not necessarily a bad thing to have such pages.  (Ok, unless it's the same word in every row). -- User:Docu
::: Ah, I like that.  Red links it is, I'll sort out the naming (I need to change the language used to describe interwiki/interlingual links also) before moving these to the Wikipedia namespace.  Ta muchly - TB 15:24, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)
Note, you may want a seperate report that removes all the 'list of' articles.   — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 22:07, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

message: "Red links" is not meaningful to me. In fact, I think that there is even a web guideline that says that you should not use color as a label. How about saying what the color represents, as in: "Articles that contain a lot of links to articles that do not exist". Bobblewik  (talk) 16:21, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Report name
Talk:Miller v. California

message: I moved the main Miller v. California case back here because it's invariably the case intended. The others are at the bottom just in case someone sees a reason to create them. Jamesday 03:26, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: I moved

message: It seems paragraphs 5 & 6 of the "History" section in this article is a word-for-word duplication of paragraphs 6 & 7 of the "The case" section in Roth v. United States. I don't know if this is acceptable Wiki-policy or not, but I thought I'd mention it in case it's not.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.129.94.61 (talk) 19:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplication 

message: I added the Synthesis template for whole article. This article contains large amounts of analysis based solely on primary sources (the case opinions) not independent analysis (secondary sources). - Stillwaterising (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synthesis 

message: I have added some citations for New York v. Ferber, Ashcroft V. Free Speech Coalition, Ashcroft v. ACLU, and a citation for Justice Potter Stewart rulings and quotes.
 I have added text concerning Justice rulings prior to the miller case, and text pertaining to community standard and the Internet.Ron Q Craig (talk) 02:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  texts and citations 

message: I removed the "case law" section because it repeated verbatim the 3 prongs of the Miller test that were already established in earlier sections multiple times.
Avivaw23 (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed section and added new one
Talk:Alt.tv.simpsons

message: adding much more to fend of the VfD. My a.t.s. experience is from the late 1990's...
----
"It was established during the third week of 1990, four months after the first airing of a regular episode of the program, which was the Christmas special that aired on December 17, 1989."
Can't possibly be right, not nearly four months, but I don't know if the error is the four months or the third week of 1990. Everyking 03:50, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, my fault, I left out "March." Corrected now. Krupo 04:09, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

text: As far as I know, the first letter of an article must be uppercase. --Conti|✉ 15:24, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Sounds like something a troll would say. ;) Krupo 05:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Why are the capsules taking so long to make? They used to make a new capsule every month or two, but now there's over a year break before a new one gets added. Just throwing that out there. SykoNachoman 00:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capsules 
Talk:Maria-sama ga Miteru

message: "Over 5.4 million copies of the light novels have been published." --- pardon me if I'm mistaken, but don't you usually say "sold"? It sounds like there are 5.4 million separate published works surrounding the light novels.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.10.3.173 (talk) 09:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: They're not exactly the same. I know there are some statistics surrounding the sale numbers of books on Oricon, but the reference cited for that statement says "Shueisha has published 5.4 million copies of the original light novels", so that's the language used in the article. Just because Shueisha had published that many doesn't mean that many were sold at the time, although considering the print runs for these books, the total sales number was probably close to that number, but again, that's not what the reference says.--十八 11:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Amount sold
Talk:York University

message: University department section fits better in university's own article, rather than separately. Tacyarg (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[York University Faculty of Health]] 

message: This was removed as "advertorial". It seems to me to be both relevant and useful information that it would be quite likely many readers would come to this article specifically in search of. I can see thinking it would be more appropriate to the Keele Campus article, but to get rid of it altogether seems over the top. 207.107.159.242 (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it can be kept, but all promotionalism should be excised before re-adding similar content. Isingness (talk) 00:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transit section removal 

message: I think this article about a York University faculty member being fired for anti-Semitic social media posts is relevant and should be included. This individual is not a student, but a faculty member of York University. Therefore his actions represent the university as he is employed by them. Does anyone agree or disagree with including this article? Input is welcome. 
:Thanks for opening the discussion!  As you can see from my edits, I am opposed to including this information.  We have to be very selective about what we include in this article and this seems like just a one-off event without significant or lasting importance for the university.  If it develops into something more then of course we can revisit the issue and reconsider it.  ElKevbo (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Addition to Controversies Section 

message: You reverted my edit of adding antisemitism to student life for being WP:UNDUE.  I included about 14 different independent and reliable sources. This is more than literally the entire rest of the student life section. Could you elaborate on your issues so I can address them? Chess (talk) (please  mention me on reply) 00:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: this is a useful section to include about this university QQQspadesQQQ (talk) 14:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue weight
Talk:Jardin du Luxembourg

message: There can't be any gain in comprehension or context by separating the Garden from Luxembourg Palace. Would anyone object to the merge? --Wetman 06:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not really certain either way.  I was on vacation recently in Paris.  The first thing that was suggested that we do is to visit the garden.  The garden itself is a place of gathering for both tourists and Parisians.  We were privileged to have shared that moment with other Parisians one early Saturday morning.  There were joggers and children playing; and even a local science fair.  My point is, the palace is just one focal point - it's nice to look at, but all the fun activities occur on the palace grounds (which happens to be the largest public park/garden in Paris). ,,,,Ariele 04:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I object strongly. The garden is more important to the public than the palace and the article can be more appropriately categorised if it is kept separate. CalJW 20:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested merge

message: Does anyone call it the "Luxembourg Garden"?  I feel like in English it is usually called by the French name, the Jardin du Luxembourg.  This is, for instance, what my guidebook calls it.  We don't have articles at Paris City Hall, Royal Palace, Vosges Place, Orsay Museum, and so forth. john k 21:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Move