lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Christianity/Archive 45

message: For about 10 days now, I have been trying to keep the trivial "controversy" section off this page by pointing out that EVERY SINGLE WORD of it was already in the text of the article under the prsecutions section.  Since nobody bothered to read the article, you all have been reverting and deleteing text that appeared in the article twice the whole time.  Somebody at last noticed this and deleted the passage from the persecution section saying that there was "no consensus for this 'new' section."  It's not new, it was there this whole time!  I am not watching this article anymore and I think it should be delisted as GA since there is this ridculous edit war going on here. -- SECisek 11:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked this version  from 01 Aug. The part-section I deleted is nowhere on the page. I searched for "apologetics" which is part of the new sentences, looked under "Persecution", looked under "Criticism" - nope. It's NEW and ADDS NOTHING USEFUL, and the consensus since then (AFAIK) is that it doesn't belong. Will wait for more comment before deleting it again. rossnixon 12:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: ThAtSo, does NPOV require that it be in the article twice? Because it was after that edit of yours. Maybe you remember it. It's the one where you used the edit summary to accuse me of vandalism. Tom Harrison Talk 18:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked and I failed to see where any part of the persecutions section has any cross over with the controveries/criticism section. I dont see there its repeated twice.Giovanni33 20:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Persecutions & Critics

message: I think the article is now fair and balanced and the integration is also positive so I'm withdrawing my objections and supporting the current draft being a GA.Esmehwp 01:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I would agree it was, until the information on a criticism section that was integrated into the persecutions section was removed.Giovanni33 19:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1 less party in dispute
Talk:List of prime ministers of Australia

message: do we really need so many different list of prime ministers articles? 
* List of Prime Ministers of Australia (this page)
* List of Prime Ministers of Australia (graphical) 
* List of prime ministers of Australia by time in office
* List of Prime Ministers of Australia by age 
* List of Prime Ministers of Australia by state
shouldn't we merge those others into sub sections of this page? 
Irtapil (talk) 13:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: A logical idea and thank you, but I fear that this page would become unmanageably bulky. Errantius (talk) 04:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this would be unworkably large. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  merger 

message: He was Labor. Pretty important to get this stuff right I would suggest. 2001:8003:D4E6:2100:C47B:F33:767C:F50C (talk) 01:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: He's already shown as Labor, just search for his wikitext under the #Timeline section.  —twotwofourtysix(My talk page and contributions) 02:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline graphic shows PaulKeating as Liberal. 

message: As per Reywas92's comments at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of prime ministers of Australia/archive1, List of prime ministers of Australia (graphical), especially the Career-based timeline section, could be merged here. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 03:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with the merge and support boldness in doing so.Gusfriend (talk) 08:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

text: I support it too it makes sense and thanks for doing so Friendlyhistorian (talk) 18:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

text: I Agree with the merge, it makes sense - Yours Faithfully, GA Melbourne ( T | C ) 13:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

text: Support Idiosincrático (talk) 13:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

text: Support, this article is just an unnecessary content fork now. AryKun (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger discussion 

message: "Prime ministers do not have fixed terms, and generally serve the full length of their term ..." is fairly perplexing to a lay read. Could this be clarified? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Term length
Talk:Hollywood Music Festival

message: Red bus was the company that ran the festival?  Is that a well known promotional company?  Do we have an article on them?  RJFJR (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Little Noise Sessions

message: I am in the process of adding the 2007 line up.  Bear with me! Oyster24 (talk) 06:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2007
Talk:6th Alpine Division "Alpi Graie"

message: "Graie" is spelled "Graje" on the corresponding Italian page. Would it not be better to syncronize with the original language and use that spelling here too so that English speaking readers are able to find it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.166.105.247 (talk) 10:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Simple reason: the Italian wiki got it wrong. The name is "Divisione Alpina Alpi Graie". See the Italian Army homepage: ,  and note that a google search for Graje on on the page of the Italian Army results in 0 results: . Also note: Divisione Alpi Graie 1900 google hits, Divisione Alpe Graie 0 hits, Divisione Alpi Graje 3 hits, Divisione Alpe Graje 0 hits, also: Divisione Alpina Alpi Graie 428 hits, Divisione Alpina Alpi Graje 5 hits. I will move the Italian article now. noclador (talk) 13:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Mostly Mozart Festival

message: No source is given to show that these actually are the members of the Mostly Mozart Festival Orchestra.
In addition, someone linked all the names whether they had Wikipedia articles or not. Most were redlinks: I suspect that most of these musicians don't have independently notable careers. Of the seven that were bluelinks, five pointed to unrelated individuals who were not the musicians named.
So I have unlinked the names; arguably, the section ought to be removed altogether, unless there is a reliable source for it. When five out of seven links are false positives, and the other 35 musicians don't have articles at all, it is not a very reliable 'hit' rate. Marc Shepherd (talk) 17:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on list of orchestra members' names
Talk:Seaman 2

message: Has there been anything explaining why they made an entirely new controller, instead of simply sticking with the standard PS2 controller, and simply adding a microphone?99.228.17.253 23:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Microphone Explanation

message: wouldnt it be better just to write at the end of seaman 1 article: " a sequel; seaman 2 was released in japan in 2007 for the ps2, rather than create this piss poor excuse for an article.....  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinner458 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion
Talk:New Music Seminar

message: This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (Many of the items on the page have recently been deleted which the information has been up for years with no contest. The new updates are facts based on performers and discussion of the music festival. Many other festivals have breakouts that show their lineups. Artist on the Verge is part of the New Music Nights which is the festival portion of the Conference. We have been updating with facts and have gone back to delete adjectives which would make the page appear subjective. We are only putting up the facts of attendance and speakers such as keynotes and had some quotes which were sourced. While there may have been some wording which may seem subjective to some people, we have been working on fixing it to show the facts, yet to request a speedy deletion for some recent updates that are stating facts is a bit overboard. We had some warnings pop up and we addressed them, then some others re-did the entire page taking out proper facts, that were not promotional and flagged this. Again, we have been working on this to just state the facts. Thank you. ) --Schwingep (talk) 19:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be better when you sourced those facts with independent third party, prior published, reliable sources, conform Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. The Banner talk 23:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but every article is judged on its own merits, so comparing with others is useless. The Banner talk 15:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested deletion 

message: As mjb points out, 9 May 2011 was the last non-promotional version. (Unfortunately, also without reliable sources.)
I suggest that we revert to that version and that interested parties can start building on that in a neutral way and based on reliable, prior published, independent sources. The Banner talk 16:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new start
Talk:Imani Winds

message: Hi, I'm jfishy99 and I will be revising this article as part of my class on chamber music literature this spring.  I look forward to your feedback on my revisions! Jfishy99 (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  General
Talk:Oxjam

message: Looking back through the article's history, it appears to have always taken a promotional tone, without reliable sources to support claims or significance. I had difficulty finding third party references on Google; one hates to nominate this for speedy deletion, but thus far it's been used as a press release page. Perhaps a non-affiliated contributor can find objective sources and start a rewrite. 99.155.204.237 (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is a good candidate for speedy deletion anymore.  I have cleaned up the article removing all of the promotional language, and replaced it with what facts I could find online.  There is definitely a claim of notability, and it seems there is actual notability to back it up as well.  I was able to find one good third-party reference to put in the article too.  At any rate, I think it's definitely in better shape now than it has ever been in the past, even if it is significantly shorter.  Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 15:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely--it's an encyclopedic article now, and a good start that can be expanded when more sources are found. Great work. I think the problem for us is that--and perhaps this is typical of such events and their audiences--the primary means of communication and coverage are blogs, tweets, and more underground channels, and are often promotional. Unfortunately those aren't usually acceptable or credible sources, but given the connection to Oxfam and the expanse of the project, I'm really surprised there hasn't been more major media coverage.... 99.155.204.237 (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Spoke too soon; the page might need to be protected from self-promotion. 99.155.204.237 (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Promotional
Talk:Party in the Park

message: What actually is the deal with this, is it still going or what? The list only goes up to 2003. BillyH 01:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

message: The Wave did take Party in the Park and this is the article on that music event. So, why is it being removed all the time ? Neither Wave or Swansea Sound were part of GCap, but they did take on this event. If it wasn't for the cost, the stations would still be running PITP & SITP, regardless of what Capital FM did. Jonny7003 (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Strikes me that an event with the same "brand identity", which took place at around the same time as the others, is relevant to the article - if only as a footnote to the bulleted list. IMO the key elements here are (1) clearly stating that Swansea's Party in the Park was 'different' (in not being GCap-sponsored) and (2) not giving it undue weight.Pondle (talk) 17:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[96.4 FM The Wave]] & [[Swansea Sound]] for PITP & Stars in the Park 

message: The article has been much improved and I respect the efforts to add more material and widen its scope. However, it has no references at the moment so I'm adding a tag and noting it here in accordance with WP:DRIVEBY.Pondle (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreferenced
Talk:Rock the Desert

message: Would be great to get a list of all the performers? I saw so many greats that I have a hard time remember who I saw and when. For King and Country was there several years. As was Skillet and Toby Mac, would be great to see. Thanks 2600:1700:CAB0:A4E0:A867:DC32:2442:ADB1 (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  list of lineup
Talk:Rototom Sunsplash

message: There is an active discussion here Talk:Matisyahu#On Rototom Sunsplash boycott about the same edits Luiscob is making on the Matisyahu page. I am reverting his edits here as well until a consensus is made. Please join that discussion. - GalatzTalk 19:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Matisyahu comments
Talk:Tanglewood Music Festival

message: I have attended concerts during the summers at Tanglewood for many years and do not recall any mention of this festival in the programs or promotional material. Does it still exist under this name? Can someone add some detail? Also, I do not see any reference on the bso.org to the words "Tanglewood Music Festival". Moshekaye (talk) 03:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this Festival still exist?
Talk:Tartan Heart Festival

message: Does anyone know what happened to the line-ups in 2008 when Sons & daughters pulled out at the 11th hour? I remember they moved some acts from the Hothouse stage to the Garden stage but I cant remember who. Maclennan182 (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sons & Daughters 2008 Cancellation
Talk:Maligno (TV series)

message: Where did that "(lit. Supernatural)" come from? As far as I know, "Maligno" translates to "Evil" or "Malignant".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.123.160.202 (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: "Maligno (lit. Supernatural)"
Talk:HHC Hardenberg

message: Is this topic notable? It is about an amateur-club in the Netherlands; with as highest prize regional champion in their class. Arnoutf 12:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

message: no bad boy but i.am a good boy and i . like to you girl,s  🖕❤❤ 202.86.219.18 (talk) 12:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  English
Talk:Camp Blood: The Musical

message: Just dumping a number of sources here, and hoping some of them are reliable when we analyse them afterwards. --Coin945 (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm going to go ahead and group these and if usable, non-usable, or trivial, I'll try to explain why.Tokyogirl79  (｡◕‿◕｡)  15:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential sources 
Talk:Northrop Grumman Guardian

message: How does shining a bright IR light directly from the bottom of the target aircraft "introduce a false target in the missile's scanner"? The missile tracks the IR radiation from the engines, and now there is an even brighter IR radiation source directly in front of it. My understanding of IR jammers is that they usually work roughly like shining a really bright spotlight at a person's eyes, it is so much it overwhelms the scanner and it cannot make out where the target is for the massive sun of IR energy ahead of it. This is not at all like "causing the scanner to show a false target". That can be done with radar wizardry, by messing with phases and wavelengths to trick the computer that processes this false "return signal" into thinking it's seeing something totally different than it is (in essence I believe it is making up a false "return signal" and transmitting it strongly enough to overwhelm the real return signal. But IR works on a much simpler basis: there is the radiation source, you can see it, follow it and hit it. There is no phase trickery and no return signal processing. If you show it an IR radiation source, it just measures where it is in the sky and flies at it, while radar has to analyze the signal to understand where the target is in front of it. I don't see any way of shining a light from a target in a way that will fool a scanner into thinking the light source is actually elsewhere. But then again I am not a tech wizard, and there may be much I don't know.
But my understanding is the IR jammers don't create a false target, they create uncertainty as to just where the target IS. Not the same thing.
64.223.167.57 (talk) 06:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't get it.
Talk:Concert film

message: Is Demon Days Live not a Concert Movie? 82.25.106.134 22:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movie 

message: Why the restriction on early concert films?  Why not list notable concert films which is what this encyclopedia is about, notability.  There are plenty of them, and yes, even after 1984.  For example, Yanni Live at the Acropolis is documented to be the 2nd best-selling concert film of all time.  That's pretty notable.  How about listing "top selling" concert films instead, maybe above a certain number.  Thoughts for consensus?  ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Notable" films in lieu of "Early"

message: I think the two pages should be merged - seems that there is very little distinction between the two.  Is a concert film just a type of rockumentary? Edelmand (talk) 12:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  A concert film is just that, a live concert film.  Rockumentary is a documentary about a particular 'rock' band or concert.  I think there is a clear distinction.  Not all concert films are rock music. ♫ Cricket02  (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with [[Rockumentary]]

message: shouldn't this is it be on this list?
--Ruthless-paki (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be at the top of the list, but at least one of the editors on this Talk page and in the article itself managed to convince GWR to use their words verbatim in the online version of its 2023 edition and put Taylor Swift's offering in that position, instead. 72.174.131.123 (talk) 03:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  this is it? 

message: 1) since when is Floyd Mayweather vs. Conor McGregor considered a concert film (citatons, please)? It reads that that 2017 fight raked in more than $3 million (I'm guessing at a public theater) in addition to its pay-per-view. That looks like the editor was desperately trying to fit '50' titles in the entry boxes, especially since there are no other sections that read "Sports" like there are for "Stand-up comedy" or "Music". 
2) where is the Beyonce concert movie that opened in December 2023? It grossed more than $21 million in its opening weekend, which should put it in the top-10, maybe top-5 after just 10 days. 72.174.131.123 (talk) 03:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 things
Talk:First Sting

message: After the rather rash proposed deletion of this article (by me...), i have done a bit of research on the internet and to the other language articles of the same name (namely the Italian and Franchones) and i think if worked, this article may have a chance of notibility. Can we discuss this to se it it stands as an srticle on its own??--Coin945 (talk) 06:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undeletion
Talk:A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum (film)

message: Im sure The House Of Marcus Lycus is in the movie too. Am I wrong?
:Yes, it is.  What made you think it wasn't? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 20:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to point out that this gives the article a very sexist tone.  I know this is intended in the context of the movie which in turn was intended in the context of the mores of ancient Rome, but in modern understanding, sex trafficing is understood as a form of prostitution.  This is NOT a good wording.  i kan reed (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: House of Marcus Lycus

message: Please who wrote that? It kills every wikipedia standard I can think of. Ok I just had to say this but I cant solve it because I havent even watched this movie, I got here by error, read that and thought I was in some kind of blog or something!!! Someone better and nobler than me, please, change it!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.147.219.47 (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical Worth
Talk:MV A1C William H. Pitsenbarger

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/tak-4638.htm. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Brad (talk) 00:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 
Talk:David Low (agriculturalist)

message: "The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Spring Rice, consented in 1833 to allow £300 a year for that purpose." :Thomas Spring Rice was Chancellor between 1835 and 1839, so either the year is wrong, or it was the previous chancellor - Robert Peel - who gave the permission. Name of chancellor hidden pending solution. HeartofaDog (talk) 00:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Date problem
Talk:Massimo Carrera

message: The quality of this article is terrible: it should really be corrected!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.12.160.141 (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)