lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Pacific Southwest Railway Museum

message: It would be nice to have a photograph of the La Mesa Depot or some rolling stock.  However...
Please note that PSRM has a restrictive photo policy.  In my opinion, additional photos of the facility would be a nice addition to this article.  I strongly suspect that wikipedia or wikimedia commons photos would not be restricted by the PSRM photo policy (I suspect it is geared toward squeezing licensing money out of Holllywood film and video producers) but prospective still photographers should approach with caution and bear in mind that I am not a lawyer licensed to practice in California.  So beware!!! Pedro Xing (talk) 05:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  photos 

message: , would you mind reviewing the notability tag you placed and see if you still think this doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 15:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Boleyn (talk), I've removed the tag. It no longer applies. The citations look more than sufficient to prove notability. Actually, I think the citation tag can come down too. Jo7hs2 (talk) 02:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability tag
Talk:List of cities and unincorporated communities in Oregon

message: As with all of Wikipedia, this article is freely open to editing.  In particular, as the "incomplete list" tag at the top of the article indicates, referenced additions of unincorporated communities are welcome.  But please note that including a reference for your additions is particularly important in this list.  Because communities listed without a specific individual citation are assumed to be supported by the ODOT official map (see the Notes and references section), the absence of a citation may incorrectly suggest that you are including that community because it's on the map.
If you are including a community but don't have a specific reference, please use the  template.
See also:
*Wikipedia:Citing sources
*Wikipedia:Citation templates
*Wikipedia:Footnotes
Thank you and happy editing!
-Ipoellet 18:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this still necessary? Because there are dozens of places listed in GNIS as populated places and sometimes as "locales" that are not on ODOT's map. Unfortunately (because it will be tedious to go back and fix), I've added many of these to the list without citations, but I can assure you that they are all "places" per GNIS and that they are fully sourced within the articles themselves. I guess I'm curious what the point is of the ODOT rule. Is it to keep out fake and joke entries or ??? Would it work better to add a hidden disclaimer similar to the one the project has about notable people that says you can't add a link to an article to this list unless there is a citation in the article itself, or if it is a redlink, then it needs a citation? I don't know if this is necessary because I for one try to keep an eye on suspicious edits. I consider anything that is listed in both OGN and GNIS legit, and it seems unnecessary to clutter the list with citations if the articles themselves are cited. Valfontis (talk) 02:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In Ipoellet's absence, I'm going to change the rule to "if the individual article is cited, it doesn't need to be cited in this list". Let's keep citation to redlink additions of dubious veracity, as there are plenty of places with funny-sounding names that might seem like hoaxes. If this is a bad idea, let me know. Valfontis (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note to future editors 

message: I'm crap at layout but in Firefox this is currently showing 5 screens of whitespace with images on the right before the main list starts. Any ideas? Valfontis (talk) 05:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enormous whitespace
Talk:Tumwater, Washington

message: I removed a paragraph from the History section and made it a separate section titled High School Football. The paragraph is, in my judgement, merely a praise piece for coach Sid Otton, and does not belong in the Wikipedia, however I left it in as a separate section at the bottom of the article. I tried to tone it down closer to an NPOV by removing complementary adjectives; I still think that it should be removed. Tom Lougheed 17:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This section should not be in the Tumwater article, nor on wikipedia at all. It says "Tumwater is well-known for its high school debate team, which has qualified for state in Lincoln-Douglas debate every year since its reformation in the 2005-06 school year."
Since the 2005-06 school year? That is two years. Lincoln Douglas is only one of four types of debate that are held at state, and to qualify for a state tournament is not something that is hard to do as (I was on the debate team at my school for the past 2 years )inexperianced freshman often qualify.
The list of state "contenders" is also unnecessary as none of them are notable, none won state or qualified for nationals, and if they did I'm sure this very pro-tumwater article would say so.
It seems that this section is just free publicity for the debate team, its members and its coaches.
Correct me if I am wrong, but this section is high in POV and low in notability and as such I am going to remove it from the article.
SpokaneWilly 03:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  High School Debate 

message: This page says that George Washington Bush was once a slave, but according to his page, he was never a slave. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nstrauss (talk • contribs) 17:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency with George Washington Bush page 

message: The article on US 101 says that it starts in Tumwater. Shouldn’t that merit at least a brief mention in this article? -- pne (talk) 09:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beginning of US 101
Talk:Kennewick High School

message: I've added a new section dealing with the division of the Big 9 Conference, but I think I got a few spelling errors in it.  Could someone clean it up for me? BiggKwell 17:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Consider it done. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 07:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  May need some editing
Talk:Kingdom of Hungary (1526–1867)

message: Hungary is/was in Central-Europe, not Eastern-Europe, Jesus, what a mistake! thus the "B-Class Eastern Europe articles", "Mid-importance Eastern Europe articles", "WikiProject Eastern Europe articles" categories should be removed! Even Wikiproject Eastern-Europe has the same mistake and falsely containing Hungary along with more Central-European countries, they will be notified also!(KIENGIR (talk) 02:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: During the soviet era, central europe effectively disappeared and the east/west split is probably the most useful classification. Of course, this article relates to earlier history. There is no agreed definition of what central-europe is/was and, indeed, parts of the Kingdom of Hungary during this period are now often regarded as being in eastern europe while other, like modern Hungary, are often put in central-europe. Nigej (talk) 10:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Nigej, Wikipedia or any party should not support the communist division in Europe with full of illegalities! The definiton of Central-Europe is geographically totally agreed and undebated. Becuase the iron curtain the false classification became widespreadly distributed and are still heavily under cristicism and it became the symbol of ignorance, although even the Unites States knows that Hungary is a Central-European country, although we know the Americans are traditionally not the experts of geographical situation of little countries on different continents. The borders have been changed, that's why the confusion is you are speaking about, but also Kingdom of Hungary belonged in all manners to Central-Europe, since Transylvania delimited with the Carpathian mountains is also historical part of the region. Since today's Romania's bigger part of her territory - as the historical Romania - belongs/belonged to already Eastern-Europe, that's why today it is also classified there despite of the Transylvanian+other regions part of Central Europe. Anyway, modern border's cannot rewrite geographical borders. So we will never accept a false classification as we heavily oppose to commemorate in such a way the communist occupation!(KIENGIR (talk) 07:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  False classification of the article 

message: It should be Regnum Mariae Patronae Hungariae. The current phrase means "Mary's realm, patroness of Hungary", as if the realm was the patroness, not Mary. 195.187.108.4 (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motto
Talk:Saint Cuthbert (Dungeons & Dragons)

message: Saint Cuthbert is primarily the deity of retribution.
:Not "primarily." That's a retcon used by WotC when certain Grehawk deities were made part of the core pantheon. Trithereon is more a deity of retribution than St Cuthbert.-Robbstrd 23:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retribution 

message: I've seen an organisation called "St Cuthbert's House" mentioned in discussion of Urban Arcana. Should something about this be added to the article (in the same way that the Wee Jas article describes a UA cult called The Beloved)? Daibhid C (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Urban Arcana]]

message: Now that this article has been deleted, it forms a circular redirect to List of Greyhawk deities: the relevant subsection contains nothing but "", sending the reader right back here. En: has no information on this important (well, important in-world) deity at all! Could someone with Admin privileges please either restore the article, or retrieve the deleted contents, and move them to List of Greyhawk deities#Saint Cuthbert?
Thanks, Iustinus (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted
Talk:Harvard Summer School

message: Much of the content in "Adademics" and "Campus Life" appears to be entirely based on opinion and personal experience.  While these observations may be true for the author, they may not represent an accurate picture of the program as a whole.  I suggest the original author, or someone with a greater knowledge of the program, find a source to back up those statements, or they must be re-written.
Additionally, I would imagine there must be more information available on the extracurricular activities available to students, work product that is notable, alumni, the admissions process, etc.  There are many ways in which to improve this article and bring it to the next level.  --Sententia 08:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Content
Talk:Arrangements between railroads

message: < In 1997 the British Railways network was privatized as a single company Railtrack, and after this proved a total failure as a non-profit company >
Does 'total failure' comply with NPOV? 86.182.43.220 (talk) 00:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's inaccurate anyway.  Railtrack was a PLC, and was run on a profits basis (although it ultimately failed).  The current company, Network Rail, is a non-profit company with the UK Government as the sole shareholder.--86.160.129.89 (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: There were a vast number of situations where running powers existed on UK railways.  Here is a typical example.
The North British had running powers over the Caledonian from Kinnaber Junction to Aberdeen.
The North Eastern had running powers over the North British from Berwick-upon-Tweed to Edinburgh Waverley, avoiding the need for a loco change.
The Great Northern had running powers over a short section of the North Eastern south of York station.
Thus a train from King's Cross to Aberdeen used running powers three times.
That train would be hauled by locomotives from all three companies (changing at York and Waverley), the coaches came from a pool of East Coast Joint Stock, and revenues were divided up between all three companies.
All very complicated, but this was only one example.  Even after the Grouping, the LNER would not be able to serve Huddersfield without running powers, and many lines were jointly owned.  Not sure how to explain it though.--86.160.129.89 (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Running powers extensive in UK 

message: "Trackage rights" has been classified as a stub and I do not see any activities or discussion going on to expand it. On a minor note, the page has been linked falsely to non-corresponding WP pages in other languages more than once. Therefore I propose merging "Trackage rights" into this article. 77.184.182.156 (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klbrain (talk • contribs) 15:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: This article totally fails to mention open access as mandated by current EU law Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open access
Talk:Bookcase

message: The external link that I deleted is a commercial seller of bookcases with a small history section that does not contain enough information to merit its inclusion here. Note that at the bottom of that section there is a link back to the Wikipedia bookcase entry, suggesting that the webmaster of that site is aware of the external link (or perhaps responsible for it). For more information on promotional/commercial links in Wikipedia, refer to WP:SPAM. OhNoitsJamieTalk 17:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: I believe the discussion on the bay arrangement could either be rewritten to make it easier picture or even better, a photo provided.  I don't believe as many people are familiar with that arrangement compared to the other two arrangements so a photo could help.  It took me a second to deduce what it would look like.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.100.62 (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Additional Information

message: This gould go back in the article if it gets longer; no more pictures are needed at present.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 12:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spare image
Talk:Flathead Tunnel

message: If you want to get an idea as to what kind of information needs to be added, compare this article to the one on the Cascade Tunnel, which is traversed by many of the same trains, including Amtrak's Empire Builder. 2602:306:BD69:2B10:D919:456:D3:3FE (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  What information needs to be included
Talk:Tevita Leo-Latu

message: Eligibility for 2008 WC; Tongan or Samoan ethnicity?Londo06 10:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Lipofection

message: Term not used in article. 81.159.93.150 (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Found it. It's a product trade name: "Lipofectin® Transfection Reagent is the reagent of choice for transfection of endothelial cells." Equinox (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does "lipofectin" redirect here?
Talk:Operation Lifesaver

message: I may put the tag in the article, but it looks from sources like Operation Lifesaver is also controversial, with critics claiming that it is a "front" for the RR industry aimed at reducing RR "blame" and putting more of the safety burden on those hurt by trains (often called "trespassers", which is a fairly railroad-legal POV...I wish we had a better word).KevinCuddeback (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs Balance / August 2014
Talk:E. J. Korvette

message: I think it is great that the locations of stores sections exists.  I think it is a classic example of the wisdom of crowds, and seems the kind of knowledge that, unless you found the company's bankruptcy archives, no other source on the planet would ever have taken the time to document even to a 80% accuracy level.KevinCuddeback (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Section on Locations of Stores

message: Please be advised that Eight Jewish Korean Vets derivation of the name is on its face ahistorical and has been completely discredited. That the founder himself contradicted the Eight Jewish... derivation is certainly helpful, but the real discrediting comes in simple chronology.  The name was coined at Korvette's founding in 1948--two years before war broke out in Korea, and even longer before anyone would have considered himself a Korean War Veteran.  This alone torpedos the legend.KevinCuddeback 18:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Korvette is not ''Korean Vet''...

message: I've created the page.  Thank you to others who have made it better.  If you think that it still needs cleanup, perahps you can suggest what kind? KevinCuddeback 18:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: Anyone have any pictures.  Only way I could get something fair use would be take a picture of the instruction manual of the XAM television and the price tag of a record that had the modernized Korvettes italic text version of the name on their unique at the time letter priced tags for the record department.  I do have a photo copy which would not be usable with the stone used on the front of the store type design.  Kidsheaven (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: When I was small in the 60's & 70's I had an Aunt that worked at the Paramus, NJ Korvette's.  She told me as others did back in those days that the eight letters of Korvette were taken from one letter of each of the founding eight partners names.  I'm really glad this article put that theory to rest.  My point actually is that the urban legend is that old and it first came to me by Korvette employees.  Thank You.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.5.133 (talk) 09:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What I was told
Talk:Julien Fournié

message: Is Torrente a fashion house? I can't find any comfirmation that it exists! I only get results for the town in Valencia. Abbyemery 18:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is. See the Wiki article on haute couture. It was founded by Rosette Torrente-Mett in 1969. Based in Paris. Do a Google for Torrente fashion. You'll get lots of results. Debuskjt 02:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Torrente

message: A section entitled "Other work" I removed because it had no citations at all. SpiritedMichelle (talk) 01:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed "Other work" section
Talk:Silicon Optix

message: Things to add:
* Company history
* General and neutral description of products
* list of corporate leaders (pres, vis pres, etc) (added ---J.S (t|c))
---J.S (t|c) 18:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To do
Talk:RAF Finningley

message: I posted this on the Robin Hood Airport talk page and will post it here also:
As most of the history of Doncaster Airport is included in RAF Finningley should these two articles be merged as: it is effectively the same airport BUT RAF Finningley was effectively a different operating airport, 'Robin Hood' is just on the same site. So should the articles be merged or should a separatye history section be added to the current article, what do people think?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbertman (talk • contribs) 19:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: history

message: < RAF Finningley is a former Royal Air Force station >
We don't say 'Henry VIII is a former English King', and I don't think the text I've quoted - the first in the article - makes a lot of sense in the same way. (I hesitate to edit, not knowing if there is an official policy about this sort of thing, but I think 'RAF Finningley was an RAF station east of Doncaster &c.' reads more sensibly).
86.181.177.63 (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tense 
Talk:Henry Chettle

message: Was Henry Chettle the H.C. who wrote the Dialogue of Silvynne and Peregrynne? I've read somewhere that he was, but this article doesn't say anything about his having been in Ireland. Can anybody confirm he is the author? 86.42.16.3 (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Dialogue of Silvynne and Peregrynne?
Talk:Thomas Dekker (writer)

message: I have proposed moving the article :Thomas Dekker to :Thomas Dekker (dramatist) over at :Talk:Thomas Dekker (disambiguation). Please leave your thoughts over there. SeveroTC 23:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: I suggest that the contention that this work is a revsion of an earler play (ie The Parliament  of Bees) has been effectively refuted and therefore I am removing the reference. Please see - http://www.pricejb.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Nobel%20Spanish%20Soldier/INTRODUCTION.htm
--John Price (talk) 10:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The Noble Spansih Soldier

message: A user named DonnaNMurphy (no Wiki page) has recently edited articles on authors Thomas Nashe, Thomas Dekker, and Thomas Middleton to include references to a 2012 book by, interestingly enough, Donna N. Murphy. Edits by this user to the article "Marlovian Theory of Shakespeare Authorship" have already been tagged as "possible conflict of interest". (Murphy is a known supporter of Marlovian Theory). The Wiki text edits themselves are rather disingenuously worded, given the username, and subjectively interpreting existing material to boost one's own unprovable theories is not "evidence" in any factual sense. If Murphy herself made the changes then it appears she is using Wikipedia to promote her book and give its speculations parity with the historical information in the articles. If someone else is using her name they are not editing "in good faith" anyway. I'm undoing/reverting the Nashe, Dekker and Middleton edits until administration rules on this. Cheers. TheBawbb (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Self-Promotion 
Talk:Nathan Field

message: I reverted this change.  A Google search did turn up the Feild spelling in a few places, but it was predominately spelled Field.  I made a note to this effect in the article, but it needs a citation.  I think a stronger case than "he was my ancestor" needs to be made for such a change, like a verifiable reference.  Shakespeare had many alternative spellings for his name, but one has been agreed upon for discussing him, not denying there are other ways of spelling the name. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Changing Field to Feild
Talk:George Gascoigne

message: I added several references to the reference section, which was very weak. I deleted factually incorrect information, such as the 1572 date for Poesies, and provided a section which deals intelligibly with the strange affair of Flowres/Posies, which was not discussed at all in the previous edit. I also supplied a sentence with reference on the 1566 translations.  The reference section is still very incomplete, as there has been a significant volume of recent Gascoigne literature, much of which I don't have handy refs for. Please help to develop this page. --BenJonson (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: New Sections
Talk:Arthur Golding

message: The phrase "requesting that his readers overlook the heretical content of the pagan poem" isn't very accurate. The prefatory materials explain that the "pagan" content is in reality a reflection of sacred scripture in a mythological idiom.  This needs work.--BenJonson  14:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Golding's Syncretism 

message: Hello, university student here. I will be editing this page for a class project. The objective is to improve it and provide accurate and reliable sources. If you have any questions you can contact me anytime. Thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melock16 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  EDITING THE PAGE 
Talk:William Haughton (playwright)

message: I delinked Peter Pett because it doesn't seem likely that he was the same person; according to the Pett dynasty article there are a number of Peter Petts (one of whom would have been alive in 1563), but they were all shipwrights; I suppose it's possible he could have helped Haughton write a play; perhaps I should relink to Pett dynasty? --FeanorStar7 23:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peter Pett