lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Beckwith Company

message: The above is the lead title of this notorious book.
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 18:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publisher of [[Praemonitus praemunitus]] 

message: *Robert Singerman, The American Career of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", American Jewish History, Vol. 71 (1981), pp. 48-78
*The above is the source/reference used. Now thatb you "removed" the "disputed" text, how do you expect me to develop the article and attach footnotes to it? --Ludvikus (talk) 21:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: (1) The disputed text is still in the article.  But it has been moved from the introduction to the section on book in question.
(2) I am sorry you bad understand my English.
(3) The article contains the same sentences three times.  (The Latin phrase five times.)  This is not necessary.  It is enough for the sentences to be there once.
--Toddy1 (talk) 22:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Repetition

message: The text contains a lot of weasel words such as "it is generally believed".  Wikipedia has policies against weasel words.  See: Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the above. I have access to the references and sources to solve this problem. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel words

message: The article contains statements that are not supported by citations.  It also contains conclusions that may be original research.  Please help wikipedia by showing that these are not original research by adding citations showing where these conclusions come from.
The wikipedia policy against original research may be found at: Wikipedia:No original research.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the above. I have access to the references and sources to solve this problem. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research
Talk:TV Ilegal

message: There are videos of TV Ilegal at YouTube. Could it be possible for someone to take screenshots of the show and put it here for illustration purposes?
Could help make the article more "professional".
Patriota 16:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: What's the purpose of listing every known parody they do in the show, with every character present? That makes (and would make eventually) the article too extensive and hard to read. I think it would be better to comment on the more known parodies and perhaps just list the other shows parodied in a simple list or table. Thief12 15:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. It is my opinion that, as is, the listing of the shows parodied does little to inform audiences that ignore what those parodied shows are about. And considering that most of the titles of the parodies are Puerto Rican slang and expressions, it just makes it more difficult for an American, not to mention someone from another country to read further than the first section. I would say that the article should follow the conventions of other similar programs from other countries. Peace. Thief12 01:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extensive
Talk:Sascha Riether

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: www.insideworldsoccer.com/2013/11/sascha-riether-charged-stamp-adnan-januzaj.html. Copied or closely paraphrased 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, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their 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.  Diannaa (talk) 02:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Talk:Peter Warren (Royal Navy officer)

message: The lead says that he sat for MP of Westminster, but this is not supported by the body of the article. Could he be MP for Westminster from the British colonies? There is no information at all about this.Parkwells (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: No documentation for MP status

message: Hi  "Sir" is part of his name in this instance. It is his title. Please see basically any other article about a knight for corroboration. Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see MOS:BOLD.  It would be appropriate to bold the title if it were part of the article title, but it is not. ~TPW 19:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome to propose moving the article, if you feel that the boldface is needed. ~TPW 19:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The article does not require moving, you're just bolding it incorrectly. I repeat that every single knight with a wikipedia article is styled in the same way. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name
Talk:John Narborough

message: I added this external link even though it IS to my own (non-commercial) website, but the article is relevant, and this Wikipedia entry is very bare - but please feel free to remove it, if you prefer it not to be there
* The Diary Junction Blog Pikle (talk) 10:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Narborough was also survived by a daughter Elizabeth who married Thomas D'Aeth whose descendents still own Knowlton. (unsigned)
: Please sign your comments with 4 tildes like this ~~~~, and please provide citations for your article edits, otherwise your edits may be removed. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Early life
Talk:Peter Hill-Norton

message: I think this Peter Hill-Norton's viewpoint on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena deserves reference in this Wikipedia Bio, with recent NASA / Military acceptance that these things are real. Hill-Norton was talking about the cover-up of such 20+ years ago... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMIvJ0pdPGo  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.31.211 (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  UFO / UAP
Talk:Leonid Solovyov (writer)

message: It would be nice if someone could translate the German equivalent to this article as it seems to be much more substantial. I've had trouble finding anything on Solovjov in English. Moravice 16:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Edward Vernon

message: I've basically rewritten the article, using the Royal Naval Museum's biograpical sketch of Vernon, which is much more fact-heavy, and does not concentrate quite so much on rum (fine tho' rum is) . . .  Pilch62 06:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewriting article 

message: The infobox lists Lawrence Washington (1718-1752) as a half-brother. This strikes me as highly unlikely, and isn't supported by either the text or Washington's own article, so I've removed it. 92.0.212.252 (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Lawrence Washington

message: In the first paragraph of the section "Cartagena de Indias", the phrase "the defeat was such that the King of England, George II, forbidden to speak it or write it alluding to the fact chronicles" does not make sense, and although I can guess at the meaning I cannot do so with certainty - that will need someone with appropriate historical knowledge.
There are a (very) few other points in the article where the language structure does not feel natural, e.g. "King George II who advised to have his name removed from the navy flag list". I guess these can be tidied up if the article is rewritten.
I would thank the non-English speakers who have contributed to this article - I would be very nervous about doing the same in the opposite direction. Brave souls expanding knowledge!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allan Kinnaird (talk • contribs) 19:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  This does not parse 
Talk:Sibylle Berg

message: The current Life section is copied word-for-word from the author's own description on her official site. I can't judge whether this is a copyright violation because I can very well imagine her posting this herself. Either that or a huge fan; other positive portions of the Wikipedia article are also poorly sourced. In any case, the whole section is too subjective and not worthy of an encyclopaedia.
Unless someone objects to it I suggest to remove the Life section altogether. She is definitely notable enough for an article but unless someone contributes an at least somewhat objective account I think it would suffice to have lists of her publications plus some stub-like information. -- Dundeemarc (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biography is copied from official site, and poorly sourced
Talk:United Nations Security Council Resolution 1737

message: I don't have time right now (Christmas), but if someone else does, it would be great if this article had some background on the earlier drafts of the resolution and the diplomatic negotiations that preceded its passing. There's some relevant info at Nuclear program of Iran that could be copied to this article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll probably get to it in the next 24.--Sharz 23:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Man, some people really are brainwashed...Iran is evil :) Jmlk17 05:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Background

message: "Contrary to popular belief, the sponsors of the resolution were France, Germany and the United Kingdom, rather than the United States, one of the primary proponents of the resolution."
This sounds like POV to me, since the writer implies that "everybody" thinks that the USA is the major sponsor of the resolution, putting the States in a (perceived) unjusticed position. And even so, the reference the writer points to has no say in to whom was the sponsor for that. Nevertheless, even if it did, that would only "prove" to be the "official" sponsor(s), and "everybody" knows that the USA has interests and applies plenty of political pressure in these matters. ~~LtDoc~~
:I moved sponsorship to be a simple statement of fact earlier in the article. Manassehkatz 23:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That was one of my edits here, but I'm quiet happier with the new vr. --Sharz 12:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is just a minor note, but is the "UN nuclear watchdog" phrase somewhat of a value-statement? I mean, you get some sort of connotation with that phrase that may or may not be true. Since the connotation can produce an emotional response that can skew or bias the reader's evaluation of the material presented, shouldn't we at least mention the organization by name before describing it as the UN nuclear watchdog? At least that way the split-second value-attribution that occurs when reading won't initialize any emotion before they read the description. rlee1185 01:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: New section title "Implementation" seems fine to me. --Activism1234 01:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section title
Talk:Siegfried Buback

message: Not seeing the connection to Carlos the Jackal - or is it just badly written?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.207.2.2 (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last paragraph doesn't make any sense... 

message: Under the heading "Career", the article states "From 1940 to 1945, he was a member of the Nazi Party."  This is rather odd.  First, because during that period, there were about 8.5 million members of the Nazi Party (about 8.499,000 of whom do not have Wikis), so his membership is not necessarily noteworthy unless he is known to have participated as a Party member in some significant role.  Second, the vast majority of Party members during that time were civilians, rather than the image that comes to mind of a Nazi "stormtrooper" or uniform-wearing official.  Again -- Buback's actual role needs to be explained.  Third, the only mention of Buback's actual career in the article is that he became Germany's Attorney General in 1974 (almost 30 years after the end of the Nazi Party).  Simply being a member of the Nazi Party was hardly a "career", nor does his former Party membership seem to have resulted in him becoming the German AG, so this non sequitur of Buback's membership should not be included under this heading. Bricology (talk) 10:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's true that NSDAP membership was common during 1933-1945. While the figure may rank far above 8 million another 72 million Germans simply were not. So it's still noteworthy that Siegfried Buback was a National Socialist (NAZI isn't an encyclopedic word and a give away that a source can't be taken serious) and should be mentioned in the article. --105.5.117.185 (talk) 20:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

text: All Nazis no matter what they did or not should be outed and held accountable. 2601:483:4500:2940:9DF0:CA43:B813:D1EC (talk) 00:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If he was kept in a prisoner's camp in France until 1947 sure he was not just a Wermatch soldier. 81.38.213.148 (talk) 23:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazi Party membership
Talk:Hugh Sinclair

message: I've just been reading the ODNB entry on Sinclair, which states that he was a "convinced appeaser". This is something at odds with our statement about how Sinclair's 1938 dossier "did not gel with Britain's contemporary policy of appeasement". Of course, the reason for this would seem apparent, with the ODNB article written in 2004, and these documents only made available in 2005. But because of this, it would be an especially good idea for us to cite sources. — Matt Crypto 22:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Source request
Talk:Primitive Methodist Church

message: It would seem logical to merge the article with the rather more detailed Primitive Methodism article. But the latter needs a lot of work to tidy it up. Both articles deal only with the early history and nothing of the significant role the church played right up to union with the Wesleyan Methodists in 1932 (and in fact far beyond). Being brought up in a Primitive Methodist family and with my great grandfather an attendee of the Mow Cop 100th anniversary camp I can do some work in this area but feel it is a far bigger job to do it properly.Dsergeant 16:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger
Talk:Baroque Revival architecture

message: I think the entire section on Neo-Baroque music needs to be deleted. While many of those composers used contrapuntal and fugal textures (honestly, the Bach style of "fugue" was not really representative of the Baroque style, a survey of earlier fugues shows that many composers considered the fugue as a device and not a form), they did not write at all in the Baroque idiom. I am going to delete Beethoven, along with a few of the more prominent Romantics, from the list as ideological basis for the Romantic style came about as the direct opposite to the Baroque.
A composer who is writing in the Baroque style will not just occasionally write using quasi-Baroque idioms, but would actually apply baroque theory and form to their works. Jmclark (talk) 14:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree here.  To call anyone who writes a fugue a "neo-baroque" composer is absurd.  Neoclassicism (music) includes drawing from both classical and baroque eras and is a 20th century concept.  I've rephrased the paragraph and removed the anachronistic examples. DavidRF (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neo-Baroque Music
Talk:Sigismund Koelle

message: I am Dr.S.W.Koelle's(pronounced KELLY)Great Great Gandson,I have only recently begun to explore the many old suitcases left to me by my father.I am honored and in awe of the extraordinary full & significant life he has lived as a christian missionary.I have much more to explore,I have only begun ,I have dozens of letters of hishis sons etc. I also have some letters that date back to 1713,1710  I have yet to figure those out,its late ,I'm a slow typist but I had to say something i may comment further in the future although i doubt any one will even read this .If any one has any questions you can email me at Rickmbharvey@hotmail.com. sorry to bore you                                             Eric Martin Browning Harvey216.209.110.175 (talk) 08:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sigismund Koelle  

message: The Deutsche Biographie and other sources give Koelle's year of birth as 1820, but some writers give 1823. Can anyone give proof of one or the other? Kanjuzi (talk) 22:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year of birth
Talk:Neo-Grec

message: Oxford Dictionary of Architecture defines "Neo-Gec" as a Neoclassical style of the 2nd Empire in France, and a "style that enjoyed a vogue in America, and a short-lived impact on interior design in England and elsewhere". The content of this article, with only a single source to support it, seems to be expanding that definition vastly beyond what is supported. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. In the United States, the Neoclassical (Empire / Greek Revival) and the Neo-Grec (2nd Empire / early Aesthetic Movement) are different styles. This article's whole "Decorative Arts in Brtiain" section seems to be a history of Neoclassicism. == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Neo-Grec
Talk:Sigrid Hunke

message: The article contains one section, i.e. Biography. It is missing the list of books and a section about critique. There is only one critique given in the article and is given in the Biography section. The critique is one-sided and dismisses the author based on one of her books as a "the work of a Nazi intellectual". I personally read the book and I found no sign of "political commitment of the author [to the Nazi party]". The book should rather be judged on the accuracy of the historical facts it presents. This article needs revision.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3omarz (talk • contribs) 09:56, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article lacks material and is biased 
Talk:LU postcode area

message: There is a website that has areas for the local codes, postcodes for areas and For LU2. I don't know whether these area totally accurate as this isn't my area of expertise but someone who knows more is needed to update. Random articles 16:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Information website

message: I tried to make this page reflect the Royal Mail view of the area, in the same way that List of civil parishes in Bedfordshire reflects the local government view of the county.  So I listed what they call "localities", and as far as I know this information is complete and correct.
From your note on my talk page, I assume what you want are postal districts to put in the infoboxes for the existing Wikipedia articles on places within Luton.  These are not listed because the Royal Mail considers Luton as just one large place with many addresses split between LU1, 2, 3, and 4.
When using infoboxes for areas that are not distinct towns, it is necessary to decide how far each area extends.  For example, most Lutonians would agree that there is a place called Bury Park, and it is right that Wikipedia has an article on it.  But it is not an area defined by the borough council, so there is no offical population figure, and although the central shops are in the LU1 district the area probably includes the mosque in the LU4 district.  (Personally, I do not much like these infoboxes; I want to know what is different about a town or village, not how it is the same as a lot of other places.  But if there are going to be infoboxes, they should be accurate.)
For looking up one postcode, the most authoritative source is the Postcode Finder at the Royal Mail Website, but for an area it is easier to use a map that shows postal districts. The following information is taken from a Philip's Street Atlas:
*Biscot - LU3
*Bramingham  - LU3
*Bury Park - LU1 and LU4
*Crawley Green - LU2
*Farley Hill - LU1
*High Town - LU2
*Hockwell Ring - LU4
*Leagrave - LU4
*Lewsey - LU4
*Limbury - LU3
*Marsh Farm - LU3
*New Town - LU1
*Round Green - LU2
*Stopsley - LU2
*Sundon Park - LU3
*Warden Hills - LU2 (LU3 for Turnpike Drive and any roads west of the A6)
JonH 11:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made various corrections to the article, and have gone back to including only those placenames listed in the Royal Mail address book.  I am not saying that this is the only way to proceed, but it has the merit that a complete and correct list can be produced.  (And what was it with the link to Eaton Green?) JonH (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Royal Mail view
Talk:A. Manette Ansay

message: Christ almighty, could you please slow down these bots?  I'm a frequent saver, so I just hadn't saved enough of the entry yet.  If it's possible, I would suggest that you kick in these bots with a bit of a time delay (like five minutes, even).
Sungjwoo 16:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

message: This is not a suitable candidate for speedy deletion.  If anyone thinks that it should be deleted, they can nominate it at WP:AFD.  Bucketsofg 18:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: speedy ruling
Talk:Pimecrolimus

message: Isn't this non-steroidal?  The structure indicates no, but there's a whole warning blurb in the article Nessie (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steroid? 
Talk:Robert Sherbrooke

message: Sherbrooke's christian name was Robert, but he was known as Rupert to avoid being confused with an uncle according to the book "73 North" by Dudley Pope.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.0.232 (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Template talk:Millennia

message: has re-added the articles that are not millennia and I think should not be here. Those are Timeline of the far future, Timeline of prehistory and Timeline of natural history. The scope of those articles is in the hundreds of thousands of years in the case of prehistory and in the hundreds of millions of years in the other two. Thus I think they should not be part of this template. Vpab15 (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Dozens of "millennium" articles, such as fourth millennium, fifth millennium, 30th millennium BC etc, redirect to those articles, so they are part of the "millennia" category. Serendipodous 19:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not true, those articles are not part of , so they should not be part of the template either. Vpab15 (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It is true. Perhaps they should be included in . Serendipodous 21:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they shouldn't because they are not millennia. They are longer time scales. Yes, you could say they are made of millennia, but by the same logic, they should also be added to the categories for centuries, decades and years. Vpab15 (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Century, decade and year titles don't redirect to those articles; millennia do. Serendipodous 21:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of template