lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Xiong

message: I don't know how to add this stuff, so I will put it here for now:
* Xiong has recently been expressing that he believes project talk pages should be "archived to history", rather than creating a separate archive page, as is the widely-practiced procedure. Wikipedia talk:Avoid using meta-templates ([ history]), Wikipedia talk:Templates for deletion ([ history])
::I agree with the basic idea that archived talk should simply be a link to a "declared good" point in the talk page's history (with some software changes, perhaps, to make it work fluidly), instead of copying and pasting to a new archive page.  This could save a lot of work and mistaken edits.  If this were my idea, I would start a discussion page about changing our policies.  Xiong, however, took it upon himself to begin implementing his idea with (apparently) no discussion or consensus, in opposition to established policies.  Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page - Omegatron 22:03, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
::Also raise the point that the discussion page he archived was discussion still in progress, on a controversial topic he was involved in. - Omegatron 22:03, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
* Basically thinks that he is "above the law", and that his vision of the future of Wikipedia automatically overrules everyone else's.
**That would be Wikipedia:The world does not revolve around you, right? --cesarb 01:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

message: I am extremely upset to see my comments on this page have been obliterated by the recent games played here. I demand their restoration if such is technically feasible -- I fear it is not, and that my comments have been speedied to unretrievable oblivion. Since I can no longer believe that my comment will remain here in any form, it seems pointless to continue. — Xiong熊talk* 01:24, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
*You mean the comments at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Xiong 2?  Or the ones at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Xiong 2? --Carnildo 03:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Down the memory hole 

message: Xiong seems to have filled a request for arbitration against himself. --cesarb 01:44, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFAr 

message: --cesarb 20:42, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting comment
Talk:Drewe Broughton

message: Southend United are a fairly obscure team from the south of England 1. Drew Broughton is a former squad player, now playing at an even less well known club, whose only claim to fame in connection with Southend is missing an open goal in the 2004 LDV Trophy final. The full details of his career are available here 2. If anything there makes him notable, let me know, but I don't think we need stubs for every lower division sports player. It may take some time... Anilocra 09:07, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Southend United

message: Removed MK Dons squad from Profile.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.107.75.188 (talk) 12:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: MK Dons
Talk:Carl Wilhelm Hahn

message: Dear authors, my edits are nearby exclusive based on Peter SACHER (In: HAHN, Carl Wilhelm & Peter SACHER (Ed.): "Monographie der Spinnen (1820-1836), Mit einem Kommentar in deutsch und englisch herausgegeben von Peter Sacher", Zentralantiquariat der DDR: Leipzig, 1988, pp 107-143), almost cited literally. Please feel free to modify this article without discussing. My edits are - for example in linguistic aspect - insufficient and require correction. Please do not hesitate to improve the article according to your own estimation.
For better utilization of footnotes and headnotes used for references I recommend the usage of Firefox as Internet-Browser instead of MS Internet-Explorer. Greetings, Anglo-Araneophilus 11:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main-Source: Peter SACHER 1988 

message: I have inserted a HowTo description at the top of the Notes section, marked off to hide it from the actual article as has been proposed in Wikipedia:Footnote3, but modified according to the way of sorting references, because the automatic numbering of references seems to require reconsideration:
   How to add a footnote: 
   NOTE: Footnotes in this article use names, not numbers. Please see Wikipedia:Footnote3 for details.
     1) Assign your footnote a unique name, for example TheSun_Dec9. 
     2) Add the macro  to the body of the article, where you want the new footnote.
     3) Add  to the table, followed by your reference or note.
     4) Multiple footnotes to the same reference: deviating from Wikipedia:Footnote3 I recommend not to correct the automatic footnote numbering but to use different named footnotes
   NOTE: Deviating from Wikipedia:Footnote3 my recommendation is to sort authors alphatbetically.
Greetings, --Anglo-Araneophilus 12:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  References
Talk:Woodford Green

message: Ilford North Consituency also goes into Woodford Green! This seat is represented by Lee Scott MP, Conservative!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.21.33 (talk) 21:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You fool, your address doesn't have any geographical significance and besides "Essex" is not used in addresses anymore, not even in Chelmsford! Justgravy (talk) 13:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Forgetful functor

message: For example, the forgetful functor from the category of manifolds with spin structure to the category of manifolds is not faithful; there may be many bundle morphisms of the spin structure which restrict to the same morphism of the manifold (or even bundle morphism of the frame bundle with Riemannian structure.  this can be two to one).  -lethe talk 08:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is the case, it would be nice if you could provide a precise definition of "forgetful functor". I can't find any such precise definition in the article. There is a vague universal algebra definition given, and there is a description of "3 types" of forgetful functors, but nowhere do I find exactly what a forgetful functor is! Definitions, please. (Apart from the one I gave above.) Revolver 22:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's tricky.  It may be the case that there is no precise definition.  I want to do a moderate rewrite of this article to accommodate that view.  For concrete categories, we might just define a forgetful functor as a functor to Set.  But can we make a definition which catches all cases?  I think to be completely general, we might find that any functor can be a forgetful functor.  I think the best strategy would be to avoid giving a precise fully general definition, and just mention all the possibilities.  -lethe talk 22:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, note that  agrees that there is no 'precise definition' and makes the argument that all functors are forgetful, it just depends on what they forget.  It gives a reference where John Baez expounds on this at length. The three things that can be forgotten are listed as -- structure, stuff, properties. Here:  linas (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  forgetful functors are not always faithful 

message: How is it referred to? If a functor acts from the "complex" category to the "simple" one, then how to say "complex" is a … of "simple", or versa? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relation between from… and to… categories
Talk:Tongue, Highland

message: I'm disappointed to see no mention of the 'I *love* Tongue' stickers that the local garage sells (much to the amusment of myself and my wife when we visited), or indeed, the fact that their petrol is possibly the most expensive in the UK.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.115.54.180 (talk) 12:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Local goods

message: There are several unreferenced assertions in this article regarding the name, 
1) What is commonly known?
2) Why is it the eastern land of the causeway. No reference.
I've had a cursory look and can find nothing referencable. DicksterWall (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source of the name
Talk:Italian Canadians

message: Article has been KEPT following almost unanimous agreement at the deletion debate on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Italian-Canadian. Sjakkalle 09:40, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes for deletion debate

message: Just noticed there is a separate article Italian Canadian which is, more or less, the same thing. It has a separate Talk:Italian Canadian as well. I don't know how to do this, but shouldn't it be merged or redirected? Dionix (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. It was a cut-and-paste "move" done in early February 2008, with few edits to that article since. Mindmatrix 17:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The 2006 census results are out...I changed the numbers. Happy to see that the Italian population in Canada grew by 12 percent...faster than the Canadian average of 5% We have jumped from 4.3% of the population to more than 4.6%.24.150.154.247 (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Italian Canadian

message: add Jason Spezza to the pictures  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.105.236.224 (talk) 11:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jason Spezza 

message: Guy Lombardo is a prominent Italian-Canadian, could he be added to the list? He is a famous musician and broke the world speed record of a type of racing boat. Lombardo is included on Canada's Walk of Fame.--R-41 (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could Guy Lombardo be added to the infobox list 

message: I noticed that you recently removed the Faetar language as well as Faetano and Cellese Canadians from the infobox without an edit summary. Is there any particular reason why you did this? Arctic Circle System (talk) 03:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I added it as a language and removed it from related groups because they aren’t really a people. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:51, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Vaselineeeeeeee Sounds good. Thanks! Arctic Circle System (talk) 01:05, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent removal of Faetar language and Faetano and Cellese Canadians
Wikipedia talk:Userspace policy proposal

message: Discussion, of course, welcome. I should point out that by intention, several of the proposals are weaker or stronger versions of one another, so that people can pick the desired level of policy. I do not yet have a strong opinion towards strictness or leniency, but the question has come up often enough that I felt a global policy poll was in order. Radiant_* 10:05, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
*I for one would appreciate some examples of the problems you are trying to solve. There is potential for a lot of instruction creep here so I want to know it is going to be useful. Pcb21| Pete 11:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

message: I've had to revote on a few items because my edit was "reverted" by someone else's vote. Someone else had it happen and complained on my talk page. This seems to be a serious problem. I even submitted a vote for one, then waited a bit, hit edit, no vote, and voted again, and no edit conflict. Maybe it's related to the database copies not syncing properly. --SPUI (talk) 22:47, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit conflicts not resolving

message: As in I belive it is. This set of votes is a fine example of the dangers of good intentions. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:33, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
* Possibly, but only because people are misunderstanding it. Most people oppose the proposals here on grounds that they are redundant with existing policy. And of course they are. But the point is that many people claim that existing policy does not apply in userspace, since it is, well, userspace. The idea behind the poll is to 1)reaffirm that the policy nevertheless does apply, or 2)amend the policy to make clear that it does not apply. In other words, clean up the controversy. Radiant_* 08:03, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
**Maybe some of the proposals need to be reworded to make that clear?  JYolkowski // talk 15:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Time to scrap this?

message: Hey folks.  The relevant page here should be Wikipedia:User page.  It currently has a lot of good information, advice, and guidelines, but it's a sprawling mess. The community consensus is clear and has plenty of precedent: we generally respect peoples' user space, but people are still expected to use some common sense there, and the final say on what's acceptable still rests with the community.  Instead of debating "policy proposals", we should spend some time making Wikipedia:User page cleaner and easier to read.  Isomorphic 16:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevant page
Talk:Zero-X

message: Could someone who knows rewrite this article so that it's more obviously about a fictional TV series. "Now resides in the Space Museum" ?!?
:You mean something like putting the word "fictitious" in the first sentence so that people know it's fictitious? -- Antaeus Feldspar 11:45, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Is there anything to say that the Mars landing was 2065, or is that a retcon from Captain Scarlet and TV Century 21 ? -- Beardo 05:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date 

message: Was there any sort of precedent for such a complicated design - and so unlike SF's traditional sleek rockets ? (I love the Zero-X - it was a great regret that I never had the toy as a child) --Beardo 05:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Design 

message: There was a series about Zero-X in the TV 21 comic. If I remember correctly, the artwork was very good. It was printed on good quality paper and seemed to me to be better than the Marvel comics of the day. The storyline revolved around alian takeover of the crew. They ender up with a red star on the back of their neck.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonckenyon (talk • contribs) 09:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In case anybody comes back here 8 years later - see https://operationmegaventures.wordpress.com/tag/zero-x/ -- Beardo (talk) 23:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  TV 21
Talk:Constance Cumbey

message: Constance, you've really got to stop editing this article. It makes you look bad, you know. And you don't hide it well - using the term inter alia is a dead giveaway, for instance, and who else would know about your father's cousin? But more importantly, your edits aren't good Wikipedia. An article is not a debate; criticism doesn't get a rebuttal. Especially when the rebuttal consists of little more than "but Cumbey said they were wrong." Eaglizard 05:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is "inter alia" a dead giveaway of anything other than someone being a college grad—currently ~34% of American adults—of the punctilious ilk, who suffered through 4 years of APA and MLA formatting style, et cetera, and never quite kicked the habit? JohndanR (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  To whom it may concern 
Talk:Plantations of Ireland

message: What is going on here? I don't understand this edit, which seems to be changing a grammar error into a different grammar error. At any rate, it seems stupid for everyone to revert each other with no discussion. Please, , , ,  have a chat, will you? jp×g 10:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I've also been looking through the article history and the extensive edit war. From what I've found, it seems like  may be a sockpuppet account of blocked user Patrick Mcdermott25 which is why their edits are being constantly reverted. It's all very strange. Huey117 (talk) 11:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

text: Okay, then I go to SPI. The Banner talk 19:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  so what happened at SPI? Link please. El_C 12:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Started with it, but became grumpy about the many PAs so I did quit with it. Then it slipped my mind. The Banner talk 17:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not my work, but see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Patrick Mcdermott25. The Banner talk 07:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

text: IP, your comment above is subpar. Calling your content opponent an "idiot" is subpar (obviously). If you continue conducting yourself in a manner that's incompatible with a collaborative project, that's just going to void your position by extension (as a product of a page or project-wide suspension). Also, please consistently WP:SIGN and WP:INDENT your comments. We need to know who said what to whom at any given time. In short, be professional by reviewing the pertinent documentation and acting accordingly. Thanks. El_C 12:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange edit war 

message: This article should mention that the immigrants were joining Scots already present in Ulster from centuries of smaller-scale immigration of gallowglass mercenaries and their families from Scotland. The Plantation of Ulster article mentions them, but not this one, so it is presenting an inconsistent historical view to our readers.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallowglass
Talk:Liberal and Country League

message: When did the LCL affiliate with the Liberal Party of Australia? matturn 03:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: When did the LCL affiliate with the LPA?

message: I propose merging this article to Liberal Party of Australia (South Australian Division). There's nothing in either article or anywhere else that I've read that suggests this was anything more than a change of name; they were the same organisation and there's nothing to justify two separate articles. United Labor Party redirects to Australian Labor Party (South Australian Branch), Liberal and Country Party redirects to Liberal Party of Australia (Victorian Division). We don't have separate articles for the Country Party, National Country Party, and National Party. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 13:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Support In the proposed merger of the WA division in the LCL WA talk page, I explained that my justification for merging the Victorian division was because Liberal Party of Australia (Victorian Division) had barely anything about its history, which leads to easy merging. For SA division, both Liberal and Country League and Liberal Party of Australia (South Australian Division) have historical information in the wikipage. However, as the information are overlapping, they should be merged together, just trickier than Victoria division. Marcnut1996 (talk) 01:11, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I generally agree as I see your point, although the situation with the LCL was very different from the Victorians (the LCL was equivalent to the situation with the modern Qld LNP rather than the Victorian parties - it was a straight formal merger of the LF and CP). I think it needs a lot of work to make sure the content gets integrated properly so that we don't end up with a worse end product, as the long-standing LCL article is really very good whereas the much more recent state branch article is pretty much thrown together. It shouldn't be done if the merger is going to be half-arsed. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge
Talk:Matter wave

message: A box on the right side of the page says: "Part of a series of articles about Quantum mechanics". And yet expanding each of the sub headings inside of the box never shows a link to matter wave. Is that intended? Johnjbarton (talk) 22:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Good thought. I posted on the relevant page, so let's wait for responses. If no or favorable response, consider editing the template. Ldm1954 (talk) 04:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Part of a series of articles about Quantum mechanics" 

message: We had
* 
with a ref to his Nobel lecture but it was deleted by @Moriarty49 with an edit summary
* This was vague, and had little to no context. If more could be provided, I think it would reinforce the article
What kind of context is missing? The section is de Broglie's hypothesis and here he announces, in his own words, the key result. How can it be vague? Johnjbarton (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  de Broglie states his result 

message: The following content was added by @SpiralSource, removed by @William M. Connolley, then re-added.
* De Broglie waves have no counterpart in classical physics.
with a ref:
*
While the sentence is true (by definition since QM is not "classical"), the reference is inappropriate. The Monads of Gottfried Leibniz may have inspired 20th century physicists but he died in 1761 and thus had no knowledge of De Broglie's work. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Fortunately, the article was not written by Leibniz. <redacted: WMC> SpiralSource (talk) 10:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be aware of WP:civil. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

text: @SpiralSource the text you added is off topic for the article. If you disagree you can seek consensus, see WP:BRD. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

text: @William M. Connolley perhaps you will concur on my objection to this addition. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree; the ref is clearly inappropriate; also, I have ventured to edit SS's comment of 10:32 to remove incivility William M. Connolley (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leibniz philosophy reference
Talk:Rushden

message: Another renamed page (along with Raunds and Thrapston. Why was this done? I think all three should be renamed back to their original state. Chris Jefferies 11:56, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I threw caution to the winds and moved this page back from Rushden, Northamptonshire Chris Jefferies 09:35, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

message: User:The undertow changed the article titled "Rushden" from the article about the settlement to the article about the football club "Rushden & Diamonds F.C.. 
I changed back so 
*Rushden is about the settlement 
*Rushden & Diamonds F.C. is about the football club
This seems sensible to me as - this is the way it was previously - The football club was named after the settlement - the article on the settlement is longer - I checked every single link on what links here and all links to "Rushden" refer to the settlement none are incorrect links trying to refer to the football club.
Carlwev 04:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Settlement vs football club
Talk:Sum and difference formula (trigonometry)

message: primarily to MarkSweep: This makes perfect sense to me, and seeing the sparse edit history I don't think anyone is going to take too much offence at anyone doing this...
In fact, would you mind if I did? (me being a beginner and all, and not that practiced in the technical wiki arts, of which wikipedia seems to have a disproportionate amount!)
Conskeptical 12:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Go right ahead. Be bold! You may want to check to what extent some of the identities here are subsumed by what's already present over at trigonometric identity. --MarkSweep 21:12, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge with trigonometric identity