lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Israel lobby

message: AIPAC is also controversial, but we don't mention that here. —Ashley Y 22:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but the M&W paper appears here precisely because it is controversial.  It's controversy is the essence of its appearing on this disambiguity page (this is not the same thing as saying that contoversy is the essence of the paper itself).  Whether or not AIPAC is controversial (and, perhaps you meant that some of AIPAC'S activities are controversial rather than AIPAC itself; perhaps not), it would still need to appear on this disambiguation page.  AIPAC's (perceived) controversial nature is not the essence of it's entry here.Dasondas 23:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding and removing qualifies like "controversial" is a great pastime of people on Wikipedia.  --Deodar 23:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, discussing it is a great pastime of some other people.Dasondas 23:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussing it is usually considered preferable. —Ashley Y 23:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant "discussing" in the sense of idly commenting on the arbitrary practice of adding and removing qualifiers.  Discussing the actual appropriateness of a specific qualifier in a given situation, like you and I are (were) doing, is productive IMO.Dasondas 23:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The mention wasn't idle; it highlighted the fact that the qualifier "controversial" is POV or OR unless the characterization is cited. -- 71.102.136.107 18:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Controversial" 

message: Why was the phrase "Jewish lobby" removed from this page?  The phrases "Jewish lobby" and "Israel(i) lobby" are often used synonymously/interchangeably; also, we have the  "Israel lobby" redirect listed on the "Jewish lobby" disambiguation page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_lobby_%28disambiguation%29), so why not vice versa?  --WassermannNYC 20:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Jewish lobby]] removed?
Talk:Men in Black II: Alien Escape

message: Most of the stuff in this entry is really more suitable for a game FAQ. A break down of the different missions? Details of weapons in such depth?
I'm all for details but this all seems a bit much.--87.194.152.184 (talk) 00:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Second the FAQ likeness. Gameplay tips an encyclopaedia article do not make.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.96.175 (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: FAQ Similarities
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD/Discography

message: I'll be happy to edit the discographies I work on to comply with this, but is there a recommended "best practices" model or two on how discographies should be done?  — Catherine\talk 22:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, there's never been consensus for a particular style.  I'd encourage you to come up with a specific proposal - I think as long as it's neat, simple and organized, there'll be consensus for it. Tuf-Kat 23:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Syphonbyte

message: I've recieved e-mail from User:Syphonbyte emphatically denying that these other users are sockpuppets. I'd say there is a very good chance however that if they are not sockpuppets they are meatpuppet that have acted in concert under User:Syphonbyte's direction. (→Netscott) 22:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, checkuser can only provide technical confirmation that users are definitely or likely using the same computer/IP address.  Checkuser doesn't  evaluate claims like "he's my brother," or determining that an unrelated user is a recruited single purpose account (i.e. meatpuppet).  You'd probably have to go to requests for investigation or ANI to determine the ultimate fate of these people and their edits. Thatcher131 (talk) 00:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Trunked radio system

message: This article needs to have article links to other articles embedded.
The article talks about systems like Motorola Smartnet and APCO16-compliant systems as if they were the only kind of trunked system. People who know how scan-based trunked radios, (like E.F. Johnson's LTR) work should add to the article. David Jordan 29 AUG 2006.
Fix Slight Bias:
Someone should also state the disadvantages, if any, about Trunking.
I've never seen a government system where data terminals or laptop modems run data over the trunked system. It gets too messy to provision these systems properly with data running over them. Convention is usually to build a separate system for data. Does anyone know of a government system where data are run over the trunked system talk groups? I think the risk of busy signals when running data over talk groups is too high to satisfy most professional users. Industrial users, on the other hand, sometimes run data on talk groups. Is this true or false in your view? David Jordan 20 FEB 2007
I have some doubts about using "packet switching" to describe trunking - it looks more like circuit switching.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.106.21.242 (talk) 19:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

message: Talkgroup really has no notability independent of trunked mobile radio systems and could easily be explained here instead of a separate article. I suggest a merge and redirect. --Wtshymanski (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggest merge
Talk:Standing stone

message: I removed links to articles about UK sites with standing stones for the following reasons:
- Standing stones are found in many other regions of the world, listing those in the UK only is misleading.
- Listing every notable site with standing stones is better done through categories. The section is more useful with a selection of articles for further reading about the subject (Menhirs, Stone circles etc). Equendil Talk 23:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also 

message: Wouldn't it be better to merge this article with either Menhirs or megaliths? Especialy if there is little or no difference.
Zacherystaylor (talk) 04:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: With the content currently in this article, you are probably right. However, I would normally say no as the menhirs are constituents of standing stone formations. Perhaps the article should be renamed? (and worked upon) Plus standing stones can be menhirs, dolmens or even (paradoxically) recumbent stones (usually only one in the formation). MRM (talk) 10:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Given how sparse this is, a merge makes sense to me. If we're going to cover standing stones from a number of cultures, "Standing stone" would probably be the best title to consolidate under. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal
Talk:Earl of Northesk

message: What is the reference used for these dates? I ask because, among other things, the article on the 4th Earl shows a date of birth (1865) that isn't shown here. This site agrees with this date and looks well researched so I'm adding 1865 to this article. 
Apart from this extra information, the same external site  lists the 7th Earl as being born in 1756, whereas we have 1758. Can someone confirm which is correct and edit this article if appropriate? Justinep 23:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Bruce Ross

message: In a series of recent edits to the article, IP 184.61.117.180, openly admitting his identity as Bruce Ross, has repeatedly removed this external link to a review of one of his works. This review was published in the highly-regarded journal Modern Haiku, in print since 1969, and written by notable poet and translator William J. Higginson. Ross' comments in the form of edit summaries suggest that inclusion of the link is the result of some unfair or biased motive, since Higginson had written an earlier guide to haiku and was thus Ross' "competitor". This seems bizarre, since Higginson died in 2008. 
I will reinsert the link one more time (my 3rd in 24 hours), and request in the edit summary, that Ross join this discussion, rather than continuing to edit against consensus and in apparent contravention of WP:COI. I would welcome any input from other editors. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 19:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Bagworm, your rationale for reverting the alterations is sound: the subject's removal of the negative review introduces a blatant conflict of interest and compromises the neutrality of the article. Mephistophelian (talk) 10:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal by Ross of link to review  
Talk:WCIC

message: I have created a new user box for WCIC fans at User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/WCIC.
-Will Pittenger 07:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Created WCIC user box.  Enjoy 

message: Edited out a bit that sounded like ad copy from a potential WP:COI editor. 
Editor and page on station's website.  Web Warlock (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: AD Copy / Editor COI
Talk:John Noyes (politician)

message: I'm sorry, I didn't know how that disambiguation mechanism worked. J S Ayer (talk) 03:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oops! 
Talk:USC Trojans men's basketball

message: Not sure how we want to organize the history section. I figured the easiest way to do it is by decade unless someone wants to figure out the best way to divide it by era.
Early years
Sam Barry era (1930-1950) - Unless someone else wants it, I (Penguin) would love to do this section.
Forrest Twogood era (1951-1966)
Bob Boyd era(1967-1979)
Stan Morrison (1980–86)
George Raveling (1987–94)
Charlie Parker (1994–1995)
Henry Bibby (1995–2005)
Tim Floyd era(2005–09)
Sanctions/Kevin O'Neill (2009–2013)
Andy Enfield and future(2013–present)
PenguinOfTroy (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: Good start, but this article needs organization to grow.  Any ideas?  I'm going to throw out some basic structure --mostly general categories-- in the hope that more can be added and filled as it goes on. --Bobak 23:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: structure/organization

message: The team’s regular home uniforms are white. Gold is an alternate for both home and away games. Black is a second alternate for both home and away games. Can anybody please fix this? Kart2401real (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uniform colors
Talk:Drake's Island

message: This article needs sorting into chronological order  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.109.233 (talk) 08:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Replaced the primary image with my own, as it is of a higher resolution and much brighter than the original image. Janipewter 23:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]
Talk:GLR parser

message: GLR is pretty hard to sum-up.  In the end, the "scanner" form should be described first, then the parse-forest can be described.
Presumably a little disambiguation is needed - GLR appears to be used both to refer to "infinite lookahead LR" (as in the grammar classification) but also to a specific algorithm for parsing such grammars. Perhaps the main GLR article can consider the grammar classification, and a subsection could consider algorithms?
::: no, infinite (actually unbounded) lookahead would be something different...  GLR is an algorithm, not a grammar classification.  "Context Free" is the grammar classification that corresponds to the GLR algorithm.  Megacz 16:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Did you have a look at the following paper?
Deterministic techniques for efficient non-deterministic parsers, Bernard Lang, Automata, Languages and Programming, 2nd Colloquium, University of Saarbrücken July 29–August 2, 1974. The abstract reads:
:A general study of parallel non-deterministic parsing and translation à la Earley is developped formally, based on non-deterministic pushdown acceptor-transducers. Several results (complexity and efficiency) are established, some new and other previously proved only in special cases. As an application, we show that for every family of deterministic context-free pushdown parsers (e.g. precedence, LR(k), LL(k), ...) there is a family of general context-free parallel parsers that have the same efficiency in most practical cases (e.g. analysis of programming languages)
The paper contains all the known complexity results for these parsers GLR, GLL,... as well as optimization techniques. And it works in cubic time for any CF grammar. Teetooan (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  History and bibliography 

message: It's probably worth noting that neither GLR nor Earley are O(n^3) in the worst case.  There are pathological grammars which can trigger O(n^4) behavior in GLR and potentially-worse complexity in Earley.  For example:
S ::= 'b'
    | S S
    | S S S
There are extensions of the GLR algorithm which can handle any CFG (including the above) in O(n^3) time, but they are really distinct algorithms (RIGLR, GLL, etc) rather than simply incremental improvements upon GLR. Daniel Spiewak (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is true for original GLR (Tomita) where the exponent is proportional to the RHS of the rules. But I can't see how this is true for Earley. I found only one place that mentions this exact grammar and exactly the same claim, but it doesn't do the analysis either. Can you explain your claim? bungalo (talk) 08:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  GLR and Earley worst-case complexity
Talk:Red Leicester

message: "there is no other well known Leicester cheese of another colour to so distinguish it by"
yes - but do not not forget that stilton is more a leicester cheese than 'red leicester' due to the conrtol of geographical manufacturing - of course no distinction is necessary, but it certainly is a well known leicester cheese!
:Yes. I couldn't find a sensible way to phrase that bit so I deleted it. Certainly there isn't a Green Leicester cheese, but the lack of disambiguative value in the word "red" didn't seem particularly notable to me. Also red leicester is by far the most common name. I get 1,180 google hits for "leicester cheese" -"red leicester" versus 38,700 for "red leicester" cheese. Slogby 21:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

message: If the cheese is usually called "Red Leicester", then why is the article at Leicester cheese? Shouldn't it be at Red Leicester cheese? 217.34.39.123 12:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had the same thought and moved the article to Red Leicester. Skomorokh 03:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Why is it not appropriate to state that Red Leicester was mentioned in the Cheese Shop sketch?Mtsmallwood (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The cheese shop sketch mentions 42 different cheeses. What possible value does it add to wikipedia to add that information to 42 separate cheese articles? Go read [[WP:POPCULTURE] and you will see that adding it here isn't relevant because it (the cheese shop sketch) has nothing more than a passing reference to this cheese i.e. it is about cheese(s) in general, not about this specific type of cheese. --Simple Bob (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Cheese Shop sketch 

message: The opening of this article says that it is made in a similar way to Cheddar cheese, but that it is crumblier. In my experience, it is not crumbly at all. It is certainly not as crumbly as some other well-known British cheeses, such as Wensleydale cheese, Cheshire cheese, Caerphilly cheese or Lancashire cheese. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 16:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Is it really crumbly?
Talk:List of joint winners of the Hugo and Nebula awards

message: There should be a note explaining why they used to be in different years, and now have converged to the same year.
-69.87.200.57 (talk) 18:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: years

message: The title of this article, List of joint winners of the Hugo and Nebula awards, is I believe inaccurate. The phrase "joint winners" suggest two or more literary works that shared a prize. But the article isn't about that at all. A better title might be List of works that won the Hugo Award and the Nebula Award.
Compare List of films that won the Golden Globe and the Oscar for Best Picture. Possibly you could insert the word "both" in there after "won".
Mathew5000 (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  article title ("joint winners")? 

message: I feel we should in some way acknowledge works that were nominated for both the Hugo and Nebula, but did not necessarily win both or either. (ex: "Devil You Don't Know"). Thoughts? DS (talk) 03:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finalists 

message: According to Lodestar Award for Best Young Adult Book:  The nomination and selection process is administered by the World Science Fiction Society (WSFS) represented by the current Worldcon committee, and the award is presented at the Hugo Award ceremony at the Worldcon, although it is not itself a Hugo Award.
And consequently, Hugo Award doesn't list it either. So technically, this section should be removed. Thoughts? 165.1.194.41 (talk) 12:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: True, technically it shouldn't be here.  On the other hand, readers of this page are likely interested in the Lodestar due to its close connection with the Hugo Awards, so it would also be reasonable to leave the section in with a note explaining that it isn't really a Hugo.  Dan Bloch (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Young Adult fiction 

message: This information would be useful somewhere in this page. Perhaps sorted by number of appearances. 
This could be a part of a list of authors who appear here. 108.41.206.160 (talk) 04:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authors with multiple joint wins
Talk:Bruce Woolley

message: I have started a discussion about the membership status of Woolley in The Buggles over at Talk:The Buggles#Was Bruce Woolley ever a member? which is probably more watched than this article. Anyone is invited to join the discussion over there. – IbLeo(talk) 08:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was Bruce Woolley ever a member of The Buggles? 

message: According to Bruce Woolley's myspace page: "His 1979 album Bruce Woolley and Camera Club (released as English Garden in the UK)...". In other words, English Garden  is the original UK release, renamed to Bruce Woolley and Camera Club  for release in the US with a different album art. So the 2009 release Bruce Woolley and Camera Club is nothing more than a reissue of the original album (with a number of bonus tracks) and should consequently not be listed in the discography. – IbLeo(talk) 21:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: More quotes to support my claim: "The overdue reissue of this seminal and influential album..."  and "Yes, its true, the orginal "Bruce Woolley and the Camera Club" album is about to be re-released on CD, with bonus tracks. It features the original American artwork, which is Bruce's personl favourite."  – IbLeo(talk) 21:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Bruce Woolley and the Camera Club'' vs. ''English Garden'' 
Talk:Straight skeleton

message: This algorithm can be used to obtain the skeleton of the character in OCR.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergey.Radkevich (talk • contribs) 
:I wouldn't be surprised. If you can find a published reference to that then we can add it to the page. —David Eppstein 19:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The straight skeleton was wrong, too. I replaced it with a hopefully better version. Shuber2 (talk) 09:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Ok, I added the new reference. From what it says, it seems that Das et al. are not incorrect, just overly restrictive (they require the input to be in general position, which is not a good assumption for straight skeletons). Or is that an inaccurate description? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Lemma 5, 6, and 7 and their proofs are wrong. Lemmas 5 and 6 can be "repaired" by transforming them into assumptions. Lemma 7 attempts to prove the same wrong statement as Felkel and Obdržálek did. There are trivial examples for which d(\xi, \ell(f)) in this Lemma can be made 0 while d(\xi, \ell(e)) is arbitrary. Shuber2 (talk) 08:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

message: The variable r is never explained. Is it the number inward corners?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.211.13.55 (talk) 09:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. It was explained, but lower down in the bullet for Cheng and Vigneron. I added another earlier explanation. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am sorry I did not recognize your changes: I added a whole paragraph to explain the input. Now it is maybe too much? Stefan Huber (talk) 20:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably, but I think having the notation at the top instead of explained in conjunction with the individual time bounds is better. So maybe the later explanations should be removed or merged into the one at the top? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I gave it a shot. Stefan Huber (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Algorithm section variables
Talk:Zoo Tycoon : Dinosaur Digs

message: This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Doc 23:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles for Deletion debate

message: I think this article should be redirected to Zoo Tycoon. I'd like to take it here before taking action. bibliomaniac15 23:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect