lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Breakdown: How America's Intelligence Failures Led to September 11

message: Can we truly quote "An Amazon reviwer" when it isn't an editorial review? I am asking because I am not fully aware of if this is permissable or not. Lsjzl 21:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. Personally I regard such a quote as the equivalent of a blog post. I'd like to see all blog posts banned OR labeled as "less reliable" or something like that. Let's review 
Wikipedia:Citing sources. --Uncle Ed 14:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I should probably say first that the Amazon quote had already been removed just around the time that I left my first comment. Still, when reading the Citing Sources page I did find this: "Remember that Wikipedia is not a place for expressing your own opinions" - and most likely Amazon reader reviews are just as relavant as our own opinion in this way. Lsjzl 17:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The second Amazon review was not useful, the the first was actually from Publisher's Weekly, which is a legit publication. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quote sources
Talk:2006 FIFA World Cup Group E

message: I'm proposing to delete the group articles since there is infor in the main FIFA World Cup 2006 article. Kingjeff 21:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Cup Group stage articles 

message: In the US section, it says they'll advance if they beat Ghana by 4 or more goals. This isn't true. What if Czech Republic tromps Italy 9-0 for example? I'd like someone to double-check me before I change it though. --Goldencrisp87 21:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think youre right. USA has to win by 4 if cze and italy tie because then both cze and usa would have 4 points and usa is -3 and cze is +1 Dav2008 21:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Just added the title above. I was vaguely wondering if anyone had got round to sorting out the various tie-breaking scenarios in this group... The blank section tells me otherwise, or maybe older versions are buried in the page history. This is what I meant elsewhere by "some of these tie-break scenarios can get fiendishly complicated". :-) Carcharoth 01:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Qualification scenarios

message: For the purpose of consistency I think one of the two should be chosen. The main 2006 WC article uses USA exclusively while this one uses United States in some places. I'm suggesting that we change the 4 instances of "United States" to USA. Anyone agree?
Dav2008 14:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: USA or United States?

message: in the game against the Czechs the United States used a 4-5-1 alignment.  Beasley was playing on the right wing, convey on the left, Mastroeni and Reyna in the center of midfield, Donovan playing an attacking midfield and McBride up top alone, could someone with more experience in those tables fix this? Batman2005 19:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  USA formation is all wrong
Talk:2006 FIFA World Cup Group C

message: I'm proposing to delete the group articles since there is infor in the main FIFA World Cup 2006 article. Kingjeff 21:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Cup Group stage articles 

message: Until the game between Holland and Ivory Coast is finished, we cannot say that Argentina has confirmed qualification and Serbia & Montenegro has been eliminated.
Delete, but not yet.This article is useful during the course of the world cup but really has no place in an encyclopedia in the long term. User:Gerrynobody 17:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qualification scenario
Talk:2006 FIFA World Cup Group B

message: I'm proposing to delete the group articles since there is infor in the main FIFA World Cup 2006 article. Kingjeff 21:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These articles are much more detailed than the main article, as they should be. They are not redundant and do not need to be deleted. Melchoir 22:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Should be kept - it's a better place for more detailed information on the individual groups doktorrob™ 14:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This isn't a news agency. Kingjeff 15:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Cup Group stage articles 

message: It seems to me like a written summary of the results of the group, at least in the context of who the teams who qualify will be playing, would be helpful.  The group page is of little help if we don't show what happens when teams win the group.  It would just need to be a paragraph and could even be added to the lead, but without that, this page seems little more than a stats page.  We need some text to draw everything together. -DMurphy 16:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Written summary of group results
Talk:2006 FIFA World Cup Group G

message: I'm proposing to delete the group articles since there is infor in the main FIFA World Cup 2006 article. Kingjeff 21:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Cup Group stage articles 

message: I've added all possible outcomes for this group, separating them by the possible outcomes for the upcoming Togo/Switzerland game. I've commented out each section in the code so it becomes easy to delete the sections that no longer apply after the game has been completed. Hopefully this helps out the guy who usually does this... as I was completely bored today. (Obviously :P) ScottNak 03:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comprehensive Table 

message: Should all tiebreaks be marked in the table used to summarise qualification scenarios? I think it makes sense to show outright winners/runner-ups on their own, but to show the ties separately, even if, in the case of a Korea/Switzerland draw, we know the outcome of the tie. The tiebreaks should be dealt with in that section. Carcharoth 19:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary of scenarios 

message: And Wikipedia get it right of course!
See BBC scenario for Group G and compare to Wikipedia scenario for Group G.
BBC: "If Switzerland draw with Korea and France score two or more goals, then both Switzerland and the French will qualify."
Wikipedia: "France [...] may qualify as either group winners or runners up, or be eliminated, after the consideration of tie-break scenarios, if they win and Korea and Switzerland draw."
The clear refutations of the BBC's statement are the following examples, where France do indeed score two or more goals, but can still be eliminated:
*Togo 1-2 France; Switzerland 0-0 Korea - Lots will be drawn to determine whether France or Korea advances; loser of the draw is eliminated.
*Togo 1-2 France; Switzerland 1-1 Korea - Korea advances on goals scored, France is eliminated.
To be fair, the BBC probably meant to say If Switzerland draw with Korea and France win by a margin of two or more goals, then both Switzerland and the French will qualify.
But as it stands, the BBC statement is clearly wrong. Carcharoth 13:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dang! I should have got a screenshot. They've corrected it. Carcharoth 13:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBC get qualification scenario wrong for Group G! 

message: The BBC is wrong as usual. The Swiss are partying up large.  Wallie 23:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gruppensieger Schweizer Nati! Jaaaaaaaaaa!
Talk:2006 FIFA World Cup Group H

message: I'm proposing to delete the group articles since there is infor in the main FIFA World Cup 2006 article. Kingjeff 21:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Cup Group stage articles 

message: That's what the colour code implies. Rich Farmbrough 08:31 16  June 2006 (GMT).
It is green for definitely going through, and red for out right? I'm gonna be bold and change it on all of them. Bornagain4 20:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Three teams going through

message: Someone update the standings, etc. I want to know which teams can get through and which can still win the group, etc. -Iopq 18:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. -Iopq 21:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ukraine beats Saudi Arabia 4-0
Talk:Richard Marius

message: Doesn't the section about his death belong at the end rather than in the middle?  I'll wait and see if anyone wants to discuss this; I'm forever violative of WP:BB because I see this as a collaborative effort requiring good relationships, it's not about me.  Rlquall 21:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Nice article; I think an image of Marius would a useful addition.
ThaddeusFrye 23:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image?
Talk:Astro Orbiter

message: Why are all articles on Disney heave on Disneyland?
:Probably since they are the originals... some of the articles could be seperated but there probably isn't enough unique information to do that.  --Napnet 20:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disneyland bias

message: It should be Astro Orbiter, not Orbitor. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 05:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Mispelled
Talk:Primitive streak

message: :The primitive streak is a separate structure during the animal development and is not the same thing as the Archenteron which is the Primitive gut. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GAThrawn22 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect to Archenteron 

message: Removed to the talk page as I edit:
"It is characterized as a thickening of cells in the epiblast near the posterior region of the embryo and is caused by an accumulation of cells resulting from the ingression of endodermal precursors into the blastocoel."
Yes, the epiblast cells giving rise to this structure are endodermal precursors... but are they really migrating into the blastocoel? Hasn't the blastocoel been divided into the yolk sac and amniotic cavity by this point?
Someone please clarify.
Robotsintrouble 15:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blastocoel? 

message: Using the word "potential" in reference to a human being makes a judgment about whether the embryo is currently human. As this issue is often the point in bioethics, it is highly irregular to then substitute one of the points of view into the definition of a marker being used to decide the question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.86.159.129 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point of View 

message: The pre-Cambrian Dickinsonia look allot like embryos after the formation of the Primitive Streak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.26.150 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: The link to "marginal zone" points to an article about a zone in the spleen, which I'm pretty sure is not the one desired. I could not locate an appropriate Wikipedia article - perhaps it hasn't been written yet. Could someone knowledgeable on this subject please fix this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wh44 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad link: "marginal zone"
Talk:Amy Sterling Casil

message: Amy Casil is an SF writer of interest; I think the page is appropriate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AlanRodgers (talk • contribs) 
* Real writer. Davodd 22:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading WP:BIO might help you understand what makes a person encyclopedic or not. Also, please sign your comments by typing 4 tildes.  RedRollerskate 03:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: SF writer of interest

message: I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates and tables for short stories, poems and/or book reviews. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. ISBNs and other persistent identifiers, where available, are commented out, but still available for reference. Feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 08:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: While I would prefer capitalization and punctuation to follow the standard cataloguing rules referred to above, the Wikipedia Manual of Style at WP:MOS requires "title case".  I will make changes accordingly. Sunwin1960 (talk) 11:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography
Talk:The Howling

message: Why would Howling III be "semi-canon"?  What canon?  Wouldn't a sequel by the original author automatically be officially part of the series? Шизомби (talk) 22:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it depends. I haven't read The Howling III so I don't know if it remains faithful to what Brandner wrote before it. However, in the case of Arthur C Clarke's 2001 novels, each book seems to contradict the one before it which makes it hard to see each one as strictly canon -  even though its from the same author. If Brandner had done the same thing with Howling III, then I can see why some readers would not consider it canon.MassassiUK (talk) 08:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I now have read The Howling III novel and it would be considered a "reboot" rather than "semi-canon". MassassiUK (talk) 08:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Semi-Canon"

message: There appears to be some disagreement over whether The Howling III: Echoes was a reboot of the Howling series of books. The fact is it was indeed a reboot, and I would recommend that people who disagree should read Wikipedia's reboot article and also the Howling novels themselves. The Howling III basically uses the basic premise from the first Howling novel, but changes the events and times that happen in it to establish a new continuity. That is what a reboot is. None of the characters from the original Howling novel (or The Howling II) are present in The Howling III, nor are they even mentioned. The town of Drago is mentioned as is the neighbouring town of Pinyon, but thats all. Batman Begins is still set in Gotham City, and Star Trek (2009) is still set aboard the Enterprise, but they are reboots too. 88.104.23.72 (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Howling III a reboot
Talk:2006 FIFA World Cup sponsorship

message: This is merely a worthy section in the main 2006 FIFA World Cup article. Kingjeff 22:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was forked due to the current length of the World Cup page and the constant growth of the page.  Leave it here is my thought. Batman2005 00:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger

message: As the main architect of this article, I don't mind saying that it needs some pretty intense editing to make it NPOV.  I encourage someone to try and find some evidence about how the profits are good for football and so forth, and just otherwise clean this up.  Vickser 20:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV
Talk:List of prime ministers of Canada by military service

message: ==Untitled==
If I am not mistaken, Trudeau was an Officer Cadet in Montréal during WW2. I will find more information if I can. 
user:ctjj.stevenson
: It's not listed on the Parliamentary website though. Perhaps you should appeal to them. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Rt Hon Pierre E. Trudeau

message: If I am not mistaken, Trudeau was an Officer Cadet in Montréal during WW2. I will find more information if I can. 
user:ctjj.stevenson
: It's not listed on the Parliamentary website though. Perhaps you should appeal to them. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Can't you move this information to their respective articles? It's just 'none' for most of them anyway. Is there a special reason to have this list? --Apoc2400 06:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to respective articles
Talk:American Customer Satisfaction Index

message: Parts of this article appear to use biased language in favor of the described research firm and methodology.  For example, the opening sentence: "Since 1994, The American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) has provided the only systematic and comprehensive measure of customer satisfaction covering the entire U.S. consumer economy."  Are you SURE there aren't other companies doing systematic surveys of customer satisfaction?  It may be true, but the way it is worded indicates it was taken from the company's PR literature as opposed to from an objective source.
And later: "...Furthermore, and contrary to nearly all market research firms, the ACSI makes its data publicly available, thereby helping consumers to make more educated choices. It is for this reason that the ACSI is also known as the "Voice of the Nation's Consumer (™)."  Who calls the ACSI the "Voice of the Nation's Consumer" besides the company itself?  It's pretty hard to imagine people outside the company calling it that.
This article therefore appears to need a cleanup to remove the POV biased statements to keep it from sounding like a PR handout.  Dugwiki 22:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article non-neutral in parts 

message: Generally speaking, Wikipedia prefers citations of sources that are unconnected to the article's subject. Therefore, citing ACSI or Claes Fornell doesn't fully answer the request for citation, especially of sentences that boost ACSI. 
Also, Morgeson, kindly leave a description of each of your edits in the Edit Summary box. PRRfan (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable sources 

message: I have made several changes to the ACSI page. I removed some dead links, and updated the methodology section to make it more complete and accurate. I changed the section on calculating ACSI scores to make it more complete and accurate, removing a link that was dead and provided misleading weights on score calculation. I also updated/added several citations.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmorgeson (talk • contribs) 13:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Made Several Changes
Talk:Marathi literature

message: This is a very poorly written article. There are no credible citations.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hariwiki123 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  No citations 

message: Marathi literature is incomplete without mentioning Pu La, Va Pu, Ranjit Desai, Bhalchandra Nemade, etc.  Why are all these great writers missing?  I agree with another post here...why the artilce does not mention any female writers? They have contributed heavily to the literature ( Mukta bai, Bahinabai, Irawati Karve, Gauri Deshpande, Shanta Shelke, etc.) This article needs major facelift and contributions from other users for sure.  Info4all 21:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Omissions 

message: Recently two URLs have been added as external links. Wonder if blogs have any place on an encyclopedia... What value do they add to the definition of the term Marathi literature? What Wikipedia policy does that fit? --Raanoo 06:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can BLOGS be cited as external links? 

message: Sharad Raghav Rane has been nominated for deletion. I think we need to ask some Marathi speakers about his notability. Ventifax 07:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sharad Raghav Rane

message: @ Amitrochates, Request you to change the Image of Dnyaneshwar in this perticular article. 
Swapniladitya  02.05.2015, 12:18   — Preceding undated comment added 11:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMAGE 
Talk:L.A. Woman (song)

message: after the lyric "from glad to sadness..." it sounds like manzareks' keyboard is going through a wah pedal, or is this the guitar? the guitar is present in the other channel, but there's some overdubbing at other points in the song. Joeyramoney 22:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's guitar. It does sound like the the keyboard is going through a wah pedal or something. I've been playing this song on guitar, and none of the tabs I've seen for it include that as a guitar part- so I figure Manzarek just messed around with his keyboards a bit. -albrozdude 04:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  yeah, i thought so too. i wanted to verify it for a blurb in Wah wah pedal. Joeyramoney 01:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I verified this in Total Guitar (see ref on main page) Candy 07:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keyboard & Wah 

message: Isn't "Mr Mojo Risin" just an anagram of "Jim Morrison"?  SimonUK 00:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is. Candy 11:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anagram 

message: I added some headings so this talk page doesn't become messy. Hope no one objects. Candy 11:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to fix the infobox for this page, but for some reason, it just won't work. I can't figure out why. Can someone help me out here? 
--Rock Soldier (talk • contribs) 16:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Never mind, I fixed it.
--Rock Soldier (talk • contribs) 16:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up 

message: ::Article does not say when the song was written?I'm asking this because the song mentions "murder".Just curious as to the time he wrote it.16:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: When was LA Woman written?

message: The version on the Greatest hits (40th anniversary edition) seems to start with a few lines of God save the Queen played on a distorted Guitar but its not mentioned here (Or present on the Cassette copy I have of the move sound track). It would seem worth mentioning to me.(Morcus (talk) 21:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  God Save the Queen 

message: http://www.mustangimdb.com/mustang-in-the-movies/card/2544-la-woman-the-doors-music-videoMarcin862 (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the 1971 video?
Talk:Avala Tower

message: Do you agree with this line
(Avala TV Tower) was the tallest building ever destroyed, succeeding the Singer Building. As of 2001, it is the third tallest building ever destroyed (behind the two World Trade towers).
I think that structure or some other word is more appropriate for tower then building.
Anyway more importantly is the above sentence true?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbumbic (talk • contribs) 01:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is true, and it should not be changed to structure because there were taller structures destroyed. If you really feel that "building" is inappropriate, you could change it to "free-standing structure". Nikola (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tallest building ever destroyed