lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Nathaniel Branden Institute

message: This section needs a lot of clean-up. I don't think an unsourced list of lecture titles is in any way encyclopedic. Since I don't know where the list came from or what the content of the lectures are, I can't write anything more about them, but I think they should probably be deleted if this section can't be turned into something that's more consistent with Wikipedia style. Binarybits (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This section should be deleted. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

text: The whole article needs inline citations using the books listed at the end. Otherwise this appears to be original research. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I added inline sources throughout, including sources for the listed lectures. --RL0919 (talk) 02:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lectures/Courses
Talk:KNM ER 3733

message: I noticed that you have added merge tags to a lot of the human evolution fossil pages I have recently created. I understand that these pages are pretty short stubs right now, but I disagree with the merge tags. Eventually I will add pictures and more details about each find. I think if we merged the specimens into the species we might lose a lot of the info. I suppose in a few species represented by 1 or two fossils it wouldn't be too bad to have a section on each fossil, but on species with 5-6 representative fossils, it could get congested very quickly. Also with new fossils being found, we never know how many a species may have in the future. Let me know what you think. Nowimnthing 11:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, OK; I checked out the Taung child page. Makes sense now. So, just go on and remove the tags at your discretion. Sorry for the hassle... I was browsing throught the paleo-stubs category and found the pages odd, so I tagged them. Dysmorodrepanis 11:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, no problem, I thought a merge discussion might come up at some point, but I do have some valid reasons for wanting seperate pages. If you don't mind I will add this commentary to each of the pages to show that a merge has been discussed. Nowimnthing 16:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge tags

message: 1. Some species have numerous fossils finds, since Wikipedia is not made of paper we can have information on each of these very important finds but that information may be cumbersome in a species article if there are numerous specimens.
2. Each find should eventually have at least one picture if not more, allowing people to see the specific features scientists use to classify species. Again this would be cluttering in a species page.
3. A standardized look to the fossil pages giving pertinant info like date discovered and age will give researchers faster access to the info than trying to dig it out of a species page.
4. Some fossils either have not reached a consensus about their species classification or have changed classifications in the past. Having their own page makes it easy to note the controversy and change the classification if necessary. Nowimnthing 16:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons against merge of specific fossils into species
Talk:The Objectivist Forum

message: I've removed the proposed deletion tag because we're working through a possible merge of this article into an overall Objectivist periodicals article. If that happens, then the article will be redirected. If it doesn't, it can be proposed for deletion later if that's the consensus. --RL0919 (talk) 16:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed deletion rejected
Talk:KNM-ER 1805

message: I noticed that you have added merge tags to a lot of the human evolution fossil pages I have recently created. I understand that these pages are pretty short stubs right now, but I disagree with the merge tags. Eventually I will add pictures and more details about each find. I think if we merged the specimens into the species we might lose a lot of the info. I suppose in a few species represented by 1 or two fossils it wouldn't be too bad to have a section on each fossil, but on species with 5-6 representative fossils, it could get congested very quickly. Also with new fossils being found, we never know how many a species may have in the future. Let me know what you think. Nowimnthing 11:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, OK; I checked out the Taung child page. Makes sense now. So, just go on and remove the tags at your discretion. Sorry for the hassle... I was browsing throught the paleo-stubs category and found the pages odd, so I tagged them. Dysmorodrepanis 11:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, no problem, I thought a merge discussion might come up at some point, but I do have some valid reasons for wanting seperate pages. If you don't mind I will add this commentary to each of the pages to show that a merge has been discussed. Nowimnthing 16:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge tags

message: 1. Some species have numerous fossils finds, since Wikipedia is not made of paper we can have information on each of these very important finds but that information may be cumbersome in a species article if there are numerous specimens.
2. Each find should eventually have at least one picture if not more, allowing people to see the specific features scientists use to classify species. Again this would be cluttering in a species page.
3. A standardized look to the fossil pages giving pertinant info like date discovered and age will give researchers faster access to the info than trying to dig it out of a species page.
4. Some fossils either have not reached a consensus about their species classification or have changed classifications in the past. Having their own page makes it easy to note the controversy and change the classification if necessary. Nowimnthing 16:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons against merge of specific fossils into species
Talk:Steal This Record

message: I almost removed the tag because there was nothing on the talk page, but this short article amounts to one editor's review of the album rather than just factual details or sourced quotes. It needs to be revised and the only way I could see doing it with what is listed here is to delete nearly every sentence. That would make it even more stubby.
If anyone can assist with research, it would be nice to see a real article here. --Habap 18:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I rewrote the whole thing so hopefully it sounds more neutral, but it's still a pretty short article. IllaZilla 04:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: This sounds a lot as if the title was taken from or at least influenced by a Grateful Dead album...anyone know?  --75.135.148.73 (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. What Grateful Dead album are you referring to? --IllaZilla (talk) 02:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Album title
Talk:Kingdom of Westphalia

message: According to this article the area of the Kingdom of Westphalia was 2,800 km2 yet the picture depict a state clearly much much larger country so it would seem that that number is inaccurate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by N-1337 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Area of Westphalia
Talk:Ninel Conde

message: I have sent an email to info-en-q@wikimedia.org with a copy of Ninel's passport to verify her age is 40.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.227.150.156 (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Birthdate update

message: Please keep comments on track towards improving this article. Morenooso 00:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gentle reminder - talkpage is for article improvement; not a chat page

message: As there appears to be a descrepancy in Conde's birthdate, and as there is currently no reliable source provided to verify the actual date, I have removed it altogether. Please do not restore it without including a source for verification. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 00:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Birthdate

message: I've removed the following statement from the article as it appears to be a machine translation and there are no sources included:
"In 2011, goes on sale this album "Ayer y hoy", quickly occupying the first places of sales. This disc is off hits like "Hoy tengo ganas de ti" and "Vivir así es morir de amor." Too starred in the play "Aventurera", recording sellout where present."
Please restore it if you are able to parse it into a legible sentence (and a source would be appreciated!).Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Translation
Talk:The Romantic Manifesto

message: This article would be much improved with a section on criticism of the work -- how was it received by the media and general readers, for example?  What have scholars written about it since publication?  Right now the essay sounds a bit too much like an advertisement.
--Skb8721 (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a reception section as part of a significant expansion, with more to come. --RL0919 (talk) 04:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism?
Talk:The Virtue of Selfishness

message: I removed the Critical Reception Section, the only thing in there was a reference to a modern library reader's poll which of course has nothing to do with reception by critics.Jtmeijer (talk) 12:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the section has been expanded, I still think the poll is a bit ... typical ... but I'll let it stand for now.Jtmeijer (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Again removed the reference the the reader's poll. Firstly, a reader's poll decades after publication hardly has anything to do with reception. Secondly, and in my eyes more importantly, the reader's poll shows a clear bias; this is especially clear in the novel poll at the same site which has 4 works by Rand and 3 by L.Ron Hubbard in it's top 10. A large discrepancy with the board's list.Jtmeijer (talk) 14:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Reception section

message: Isn't Rand's use of the term more consistent with the Japanese sense of the term "selfishness" than the normal English or American sense? I see the word "selfish" appear in subtitles of Japanese anime films in which it seems to be used in strictly the Randian sense: to mean not unjust action (such as force) to others in deference to one's self as we associate the term, but simply as a refusal to follow the crowd. I think this latter sense of "selfishness" is the sense Rand means rather than the former. The article could use a better explanation of this, perhaps with quotes from the book. --134.193.112.62 (talk)
I think there is a lot of equivocation in Rand's use of the term "selfishness."  In some contexts, she seems to mean something like the pursuit of one's enlightened self-interest.  In other contexts, she seems to mean simply a refusal to follow the dictates of the crowd, as suggested above.  And in still other contexts, she seems to mean something like the more ordinary meaning of the term.  It seems to me that via this equivocation she is able to glorify even the more usual meaning of "selfishness" as a moral virtue.
JimFarm (talk) 13:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the term "selfish"
Talk:SK 46

message: I noticed that you have added merge tags to a lot of the human evolution fossil pages I have recently created. I understand that these pages are pretty short stubs right now, but I disagree with the merge tags. Eventually I will add pictures and more details about each find. I think if we merged the specimens into the species we might lose a lot of the info. I suppose in a few species represented by 1 or two fossils it wouldn't be too bad to have a section on each fossil, but on species with 5-6 representative fossils, it could get congested very quickly. Also with new fossils being found, we never know how many a species may have in the future. Let me know what you think. Nowimnthing 11:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, OK; I checked out the Taung child page. Makes sense now. So, just go on and remove the tags at your discretion. Sorry for the hassle... I was browsing throught the paleo-stubs category and found the pages odd, so I tagged them. Dysmorodrepanis 11:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, no problem, I thought a merge discussion might come up at some point, but I do have some valid reasons for wanting seperate pages. If you don't mind I will add this commentary to each of the pages to show that a merge has been discussed. Nowimnthing 16:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge tags

message: 1. Some species have numerous fossils finds, since Wikipedia is not made of paper we can have information on each of these very important finds but that information may be cumbersome in a species article if there are numerous specimens.
2. Each find should eventually have at least one picture if not more, allowing people to see the specific features scientists use to classify species. Again this would be cluttering in a species page.
3. A standardized look to the fossil pages giving pertinant info like date discovered and age will give researchers faster access to the info than trying to dig it out of a species page.
4. Some fossils either have not reached a consensus about their species classification or have changed classifications in the past. Having their own page makes it easy to note the controversy and change the classification if necessary. Nowimnthing 16:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons against merge of specific fossils into species
Template talk:Portuguese political parties

message: I'm changing the order of the icons from alphabetical to political, from left to right-wing, matching to the one in List of political parties in Portugal.  Although the classification is arguable, it at least gives an approximate idea of the political spectrum, visible directly in the template, and can always be improved further on. -- koenige 18:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets discuss this. What is your criteria in the ordering of the leftish parties. You consider POUS to be on the left of PEV? Because PDA supported Manuel Alegre you put the party between PS and PSD, when it is formed around a terrorist right-wing organization and former fascist supporters? It should be righter than CDS-PP at least. MPT should be in the middle of PSD and CDS-PPP and PNR should be the far right party. What do you think? Joaopais 13:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reordering
Talk:KNM-ER 992

message: I noticed that you have added merge tags to a lot of the human evolution fossil pages I have recently created. I understand that these pages are pretty short stubs right now, but I disagree with the merge tags. Eventually I will add pictures and more details about each find. I think if we merged the specimens into the species we might lose a lot of the info. I suppose in a few species represented by 1 or two fossils it wouldn't be too bad to have a section on each fossil, but on species with 5-6 representative fossils, it could get congested very quickly. Also with new fossils being found, we never know how many a species may have in the future. Let me know what you think. Nowimnthing 11:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, OK; I checked out the Taung child page. Makes sense now. So, just go on and remove the tags at your discretion. Sorry for the hassle... I was browsing throught the paleo-stubs category and found the pages odd, so I tagged them. Dysmorodrepanis 11:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, no problem, I thought a merge discussion might come up at some point, but I do have some valid reasons for wanting seperate pages. If you don't mind I will add this commentary to each of the pages to show that a merge has been discussed. Nowimnthing 16:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge tags

message: 1. Some species have numerous fossils finds, since Wikipedia is not made of paper we can have information on each of these very important finds but that information may be cumbersome in a species article if there are numerous specimens.
2. Each find should eventually have at least one picture if not more, allowing people to see the specific features scientists use to classify species. Again this would be cluttering in a species page.
3. A standardized look to the fossil pages giving pertinant info like date discovered and age will give researchers faster access to the info than trying to dig it out of a species page.
4. Some fossils either have not reached a consensus about their species classification or have changed classifications in the past. Having their own page makes it easy to note the controversy and change the classification if necessary. Nowimnthing 16:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons against merge of specific fossils into species
Talk:Sangiran 2

message: I noticed that you have added merge tags to a lot of the human evolution fossil pages I have recently created. I understand that these pages are pretty short stubs right now, but I disagree with the merge tags. Eventually I will add pictures and more details about each find. I think if we merged the specimens into the species we might lose a lot of the info. I suppose in a few species represented by 1 or two fossils it wouldn't be too bad to have a section on each fossil, but on species with 5-6 representative fossils, it could get congested very quickly. Also with new fossils being found, we never know how many a species may have in the future. Let me know what you think. Nowimnthing 11:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, OK; I checked out the Taung child page. Makes sense now. So, just go on and remove the tags at your discretion. Sorry for the hassle... I was browsing throught the paleo-stubs category and found the pages odd, so I tagged them. Dysmorodrepanis 11:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, no problem, I thought a merge discussion might come up at some point, but I do have some valid reasons for wanting seperate pages. If you don't mind I will add this commentary to each of the pages to show that a merge has been discussed. Nowimnthing 16:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge tags

message: 1. Some species have numerous fossils finds, since Wikipedia is not made of paper we can have information on each of these very important finds but that information may be cumbersome in a species article if there are numerous specimens.
2. Each find should eventually have at least one picture if not more, allowing people to see the specific features scientists use to classify species. Again this would be cluttering in a species page.
3. A standardized look to the fossil pages giving pertinant info like date discovered and age will give researchers faster access to the info than trying to dig it out of a species page.
4. Some fossils either have not reached a consensus about their species classification or have changed classifications in the past. Having their own page makes it easy to note the controversy and change the classification if necessary. Nowimnthing 16:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons against merge of specific fossils into species
Talk:Soup of the Day

message: This reads a LOT like an advertisement. Alvis 18:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

message: :Hmm.  Not sure on this one.  I remember it (its from the guys who made The Spot but I'll see what coverage is out there on it.--Milowent (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, there's a lot, glad I expended 5 minutes on google, I know some editors find google quite difficult to use. Here are some links:
*USATODAY: 
*Deseret News (Salt Lake City): ("Soup of the Day' represents the convergence of new media and...Originally seen as weekly webisodes on YouTube and other sites, Soup of the Day is the story...")
*Hollywood Reporter: 
*Video Business (Variety property): 
*DVDtalk.com: 
*serious comedy site review:
--Milowent (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability? 
Talk:Sister Mary Corita Kent

message: Removed the following line: "The LOVE stamp is not Sister Mary Corita Kent, it is Robert Indiana, based on his LOVE sculpture."
There has been a new love stamp released by the USPS every year since 1973 ( which was done by Robert Indiana ) The love stamp done by Sister Mary Corita Kent was done in the 80's. J E Bailey 18:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Love stamp creator
Talk:Out and back roller coaster

message: Should we put in something about double-out-and-backs and triple-out-and-backs? Timetrial3141592 20:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Would anyone object if the content of this page was moved to Out and back roller coaster? It is inconsistent within the article, but I'm not sure if the title is more accurate or if the article itself is more accurate. Any opinions? Soliloquialtalk 05:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Move content to [[Out and back roller coaster]]
Talk:J. S. G. Boggs

message: WikiProject Biography Assessment Drive
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 00:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 

message: There are several BLP violations within this article (unsourced claims, etc). I'm removing them in accordance with policy/guideline. Before they are replaced reliable sources should be found and included in the article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP violations 

message: I corrected Smithsonian Institute to say Smithsonian Institution.
But this whole article A) is very disorganized, and B) reads like most of it was written by Boggs himself.   140.147.236.195 (talk) 16:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction and suspicion 

message: https://news.artnet.com/art-world/jsg-boggs-money-artist-died-62-828554 says he died on Monday - which would be 23 January.
But http://www.tampabay.com/news/obituaries/artist-jsg-boggs-known-worldwide-for-his-drawings-of-money-dies-in-tampa/2310740 says he died on 22 January. I would suspect the latter to be more accurate, as it seems to include more detail (i.e. the police being called to the hotel on Sunday), but without further / more reliable sources, it's difficult to resolve this. --David Edgar (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Some more sources are available giving 22 January now, so I think it's sensible to update the article. --David Edgar (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of death
Talk:Applewild School

message: Victuallers 20:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)