lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Trip Hawkins

message: This article is often vandalized by someone with a dynamic IP address (always beginning with 209.179).  It's becomming a real hassle to keep reverting their changes.  Should we look at banning the whole range of IP addresses beginning with  209.179--which I don't even know is possible--or protecting the article (I really doubt the vandal is an administrator)?  If we protected it, if someone wanted to make a change to the article, they'd have to submit the request to an administrator, which is really un-Wiki.  Does anyone else have any ideas?  Should we just keep reverting the changes? —Frecklefoot 14:33, May 20, 2004 (UTC)
: I think we should just keep reverting him.  That's a large chunk of the dialup IP space for Earthlink, so I don't think we should ban the lot (for any reason other than an ongoing vandalbot assult).  I'd be perfectly happy if his individual IP gets banned (say for 2 hrs) when he does damage, at least forcing him to reconnect, and there seems to be no need to warn him further.  He doesn't seem to be doing any other damage, and I think he'll (eventually) get tired and quit.  Given his visits are rather infrequent, and his damage so blatant, I don't see the use in protecting the page either. He cannot win, he just doesn't know it yet. -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk 16:48, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: A salient reminder to those admins who frequent Speedy Deletes (myself included) to check the history of such articles.  Luckily this particular article seems to be on the watchlist of many (it's a shame deletion doesn't seem to show up in one's watchlist) so the vandal should be thwarted quickly. -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk 19:12, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalization bait

message: Perhaps some we should add that he designed his own major in strategy and game theory at Harvard? --163.1.141.16
:If you know anything about that, please go ahead.  Be bold!  Also, sign your posts.  You can do this with 3 or 4 tildes (~~~ or ~~~~).  The latter is preferred, since it also adds a timestamp. — Frecklefoot | Talk 22:36, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
OK done that dunno if its any good, hope it is! Not really much information added but fills it out a bit I guess. 163.1.141.16 12:14, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, it looks fine.  The more information the better.  I cleaned it up a bit, but it's a good addition. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:24, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
So what about where Trip is now? It doesn't say anything about him since his "stepping down from the CEO position at Digital Chocolate in May, 2012"... did he retire? Demetari (talk) 03:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: More on Trip

message: Keep an eye out... http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/48482   Sfacets 07:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "EA staffer attempts to alter Wiki history"
Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Theresa Knott

message: :I am protesting the recent vandalism done by User:Mirv to this request for comment which has deliberately destroyed my work of several hours.  This is not what I wrote. This is not the format that I used.  I find the new layout totally confusing. And, I object to being forced to waste more of my valuable time while you people are going out of your way to let administrators personally attack and harass editors. -- John Gohde 15:39, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This layout is a lot more clear, and summarises everything neatly, providing specific areas for comments. I don't see what the problem is -- Jim Regan 15:45, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I do, and that is all that counts. I do not recognize my own request for comment.  And, I find it extremely confusing!!! -- John Gohde 16:06, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not your request for comment. RfCs are unsigned. Although you may have made the request, you have no ownership of it. Snowspinner 06:08, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
Talk:Tears

message: The rock band Tool should've been mentioned. At least in the "see also"-part. They claim they chose their name because they wanted their music to be a tool in crying as a way to evolve as a human. They have several referances to lachrymololgy.
----
what are these other cultures where men are more acce[ted for crying than women
----
>> They are filled with hormones, and it now believed tears are a method of expelling excess hormones from the body.
:I have softened this down because as far as I know it is no more than a conjecture suggested by William Frey's research, the leap to a factoid was made by the trivia culture. Femto 14:32, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: When you cry, if your tear falls first from your left eye, this is a sign that they are angry tears. If it falls first from the right, this is a sign of happy tears. 185.68.107.2 (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow that's amazing i didn't know 41.114.246.131 (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crying
Talk:English football league system

message: Just a quick query - this article presents the current state of affairs very nicely, but there's no information about how things were in days gone by. For example the Football League Third Division South and North aren't mentioned. Would it be worth including a summary of the history, and major changes which led us to where we are now, or would that be overkill?  — Amakuru (talk) 10:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: - History of the English non-League football system seems to cover the stuff below what is now the EFL.  Maybe the changes to the EFL itself (which obviously are far fewer) could be covered within this article.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds a good plan. Obviously the detail in that other page is way too much to be covered here, but it would be useful to have the equivalent info regarding the top four divisions somewhere.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  No historical information 

message: How do 4 on 1 and headers 91.84.213.22 (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defending 

message: Hello,
I have downloaded this very useful site as pdf file,but unfortunately the copy on my USB stick is partly cut at the right hand side, where the table of the original is quite wide. It might have to do with the template of the original text. How could I get the complete table on my USB stick?
Saskiander Saskiander (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of Download is cut at right hand side where table of original is quite wide 

message: -Level 14: Cheltenham League Division One: Now (Cheltenham Premier Division)
https://fulltime.thefa.com/index.html?league=516676&selectedSeason=314809646&selectedDivision=875232964&selectedCompetition=0&selectedFixtureGroupKey=1_137286587 
-Cheltenham Division Three & Four Disbanded 
Stroud League Divisions Now: 
Division 1,
Division 2,
Division 3,
Division 4 North,
Division 4 South,
Division 5 North,
Division 5 South,
Division 6,
https://fulltime.thefa.com/index.html?league=1199765 HayesyChelt (talk) 20:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gloucestershire local leagues updates 

message: For the men's cups parts of the info box there is no mention of the Football league trophy or the FA Vase. Is there a reason for this omission? 2001:56A:6FF1:D608:0:58:D160:9D01 (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info box cup suggestion
Talk:Shorthand

message: The section Europe and North America has some confusing mistakes about dating the systems. It dates John Willis' system to 1602, Edmond Willis' system to 1618, and Thomas Shelton's first system to 1626. It also states that Shelton borrowed from Edmond Willis to design his system. However, at List_of_shorthand_systems John Willis' system is dated to 1618, Edmond Willis' system to 1627, and Thomas Shelton's first system to 1626. Not only are the dates different (and with individual citations, unlike on this page) but the dates make it implausible for Shelton to have based his system on Edmond Willis' system. I don't know which page is right, but the discrepancy needs to be corrected somehow. 2601:441:4400:1740:A58F:9116:857A:AB26 (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I have found a reference to John Willis publishing something about Shorthand (his system?) in 1602: on page xv of "The 'instruction book' ... Pocknell's Legible shorthand". 2601:441:4400:1740:A58F:9116:857A:AB26 (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Here is another source, supporting the dates in this article over the dates in the List article: https://metilli.com/files/Metilli-Odyssey-2014-05-05.pdf (p. 3). 2601:441:4400:1740:A58F:9116:857A:AB26 (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dating confusions (Europe and North America)
Talk:Last prophet

message: This article struck me as a little messy, so I rewrote it, using the same basic info. I eliminated the part about Christianity teaching that John the Baptist is the last prophet, since this is not the case. See Seal of the Prophets for an explanation. — Nowhither 03:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes on rewrite 

message: If I don't hear any objections, I'll be redirecting this article to Seal of the Prophets. Editor2020 (talk) 01:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect to [[Seal of the Prophets]] 

message: I'm a prophet. This article is bullshit. I'm on reddit, a verified prophet. I'm also a wikipedian but I'm too angry to "out" myself as a prophet, but I've been a wikipedian for over a decade. 71.215.83.8 (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving the article 

message: I happened to see the last couple of edits, and they looked like a developing edit war with religious POV behind it. I don't have a religious POV on this, but don't have relevant knowledge or background either. Regardless, thinking of WP:DUE, I've WP:BOLDly made an edit which suggests restoring the removed content outside of but adjacent to  the Islam section, relocating one sentence and adding a however. It seems to make sense to me. Can this be the basis for a compromise here? Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ahmadiyya movement
Talk:Flag of Andorra

message: I think that the flag shown in this article is wrong! The upper left quarter of the coat of arms in the flag is blue (with something like a yellow golden diamond in it). The real flag is supposed to show the "real" coat of arms of Andorra, in which the upper left quarter is red and showing a golden miter. 143.50.212.48 19:32, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I replaced the wrong flag with the right one. Gugganij 21:39, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect Flag

message: The article says that the flag of Andorra is the only national flag depicting cattle, yet I'm pretty sure the flag of Moldova does.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Interopia (talk • contribs) 09:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only flag depicting cattle?
Talk:Burning Times

message: *(...)Worst however, is the question of accuracy. I suggest reviewers start by reading "Recent Developments in the Study of The Great European Witch Hunt", a review article by a Wiccan who also has an M.A. in medieval history. One sentence summary: much of what was traditionally believed about witches and witch-hunting is now proven to be mythical. Much of the original part of the Burning Times article is based on this myth. A featureable article on this topic would include origins and early form of the myth, recent historical research which debunks it, what really happened, and attitudes and beliefs today (Wiccan and otherwise). Securiger 03:20, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: factual accuracy dispute, copy from featured article candidature

message: May be this article has to be merged with witch hunt? I put this article on the clean up page? Andries 09:46, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with Witch Hunt article? 

message: Created new accurate article some of the following may be worth merging with witchunt.
--Machenphile 14:39, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: New version

message: So we've gone from an inaccurate and POV article taking one side of a dispute to a possibly accurate but very POV article taking the other side. In order to make this an appropriate article, I believe the following would need to be addressed:
#Actual citation on Gerald Gardner, and preferably either his own acknoledgement or some other authority's statement that he invented the term.
#Phrases like "something which has no proved basis in fact", "the inaccurate views of Margaret Murray", etc. are nothing more than POV assertions on controversial matters. Cite specific authorities to this effect, don't just assert. In fact, the article does not cite a single authority in stating that the named writers are wrong, nor does it name even one of the "various American feminist historians" it says took up the idea. Certainly Mary Daly would be a good example. I suspect there are several others who should be cited as holding this view. I also think their sources should be alluded to and (if indeed their scholarship was poor) refuted rather than dismissed out of hand.
#Again, "Modern historians have shown" is hopelessly vague.
Jmabel 06:04, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
:well, yes, I agree with Jmabel that the articles doesn't deal yet with the different view points in an accurate way, NPOV way. But I believe it has already improved greatly and I want to thank Machenphile for this. Andries 17:49, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "My POV good, your POV bad"
Talk:Saunders Mac Lane

message: Why does the article (both title and text) have MacLane as one word when there 
seems to be no doubt that he spelt it as two? Does somebody know different, or is it okay if I move/change it? With appropriate redirection, obviously.... Cambyses 20:37, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling

message: The article describes Mac Lane as the co-founder of category theory. Does this make category theory the founder of Saunders Mac Lane? 91.189.202.154 (talk) 11:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction
Talk:Side entry missionary position

message: The image on this page does not help me understand the position at all.  What about it is "side entry"? --Strait 23:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I've blown away what was here and replaced it with something that makes sense to me. --Strait 04:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image
Talk:Spadina House

message: Since the signs to Spadina House now call it Spadina Museum, I thought I'd better clarify that. TronTonian
I realize that many Torontonians prefer very restrained colours, but calling Casa Loma garish is still POV. I've always thought of it as bland myself, except for the fence, which I consider one of the better looking architectural features in Toronto – faint praise, but deserved. The Royal Pavilion at Brighton, now that's garish. TronTonian
Deleted advertising of paid stays. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.117.196.48 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 25 September 2006  (UTC)
*I wouldn't call that an advertisement, but I don't know if the stays are actually available. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]
Talk:Don Johnson

message: This says 5 children but under personal life it indicates 6 with 3 women. 2601:601:9E80:7E0:D100:52C2:C87D:9D25 (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of Children 

message: "During the time he was on Miami Vice, he had set up an hour-long music video/pay cable program in the works, with videocassette versions of the programs Johnson had hosted being handled by distributor CBS/Fox Video, and the upcoming product will be a tie-in to his first album Heartbeat, which would be available for CBS/Epic Records."
  
I am not a native speaker, so I have to ask here, but this sentence seems strange. Could it be that it has grammatical errors?:
 
"set up (...) in the works" 
 
&
"During the time he was at Miami Vice (...) upcoming (...) will be { when? is that talking about NOW or the past? } (...) which would be (...)" { which time, and did it happen or was it just a possibility or plan which did/ will not necessarily ever materialise? }
  
(To me) It is not very clear in its message/ content...
Am I just being "stupid" today :-D (is my understanding of English too bad) or IS something wrong (and confusing) with this sentence? 2A02:3030:40A:A15B:1:0:2055:C4E9 (talk) 10:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar (and meaning) in this sentence?
Talk:University of the Third Age

message: When this page was created, no links into it were made -- SGBailey 22:45, 2004 May 20 (UTC)
I have added a paragraph and a link from university to U3A. Although U3A does not conform to the modern Western model of a university, a state-approved and richly funded institution permitted to award honours and academic degrees, it does reflect the original sense of universitas magistrorum et scholarium - a gathering of teachers and scholars - in the instance of the U3A - with the aggregated experience of many years of life and a desire to teach and learn just for the pleasure of those activities. Fenton Robb 23:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Imperial Guard (Napoleon I)

message: __TOC__
Unless anyone voices objections I am going to restore this article to 21:01, 16 May 2004 . . Greudin. I please reply in this page within 24 hours of this posting if you object to me doing this and we can discuss it further.Philip Baird Shearer 23:25, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

message: I am VERY new to Wikipedia (this is my first post on any article) but I'm interested and somewhat well read in military history and see a LOT of problems and possible improvements for this page. The Imperial Guard were not a commando unit in ANY sense of the word except that they were elite (and even then the 19th century idea of an elite unit differs from our own). There is no explanation of the various infantry, cavalry, and other elements of the guard (as well as elements totally left out such as the Marin and the Velites). The difference between Old, Middle and Young guard are only mentioned. There is no mention of the foreign components of the Guard (such as the so-called Mamelukes whose services Napoleon acquired in Egypt). There is no discussion of their contribution or lack thereof except at Waterloo. There is no discussion of their commanders (Bessieres, Lefebvre, Mortier, all had commands in the Guard and there are many others). I plan to start making some edits on this page soon and would really appreciate the help of someone with more experience in designing and laying out pertinent information. I plan to be using Elting’s Swords Around the Throne and some of Chandler’s work but I am open to any suggestions about sources.
:I agree, this article needs more flesh on the bones - Be bold and edit away ;)
:Also, using four tildes (~~~~) at the end of a post automatically appends your signature or IP address to your comments, which makes it easier for other editors to respond to you. EyeSereneTALK 16:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrections and Updates on this Page 
Talk:Kollikodon

message: I do not see any sources claiming classification of the species into mammals while the article is going into even more details putting it into monotreme mammals. I would like to see how one have proved the method of birth-giving just from few fossilized teeth.
If it is someone with a scientific reputation making assumptions based on similarities with living mammals and/or DNA-analysis, it would be fine but has to be properly stated! -- Goldie (tell me) 19:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mammal? Monotreme? 

message: "Eric, the opalised pliosaur" -- Not to be a children's television show with a catchy theme song any time soon.  :-) (Okay, here.) -- Writtenonsand (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Eric, the opalised pliosaur

message: is that part serious? all of it?99.140.193.127 (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  hot cross buns 

message: I have proofread this stub, but would like clarification as to whether Dr Archer's suggested name was Hotcrossbunidon (external links)  or Hotcrossbunodon (origin of name). Old Father Time (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A request for clarification 
Talk:Clifton, Massachusetts

message: I considered adding the following:
: Today Clifton is known for its strong Jewish community.
However, I can't find a third-party reference saying anything about this. It's admittedly hearsay; but with such a local neighborhood identity, I have to argue that there must be something common to the people of the area. KeithTyler
I added the pdf of the book published following the Clifton Conference. It shows up as the cover. I am not sure how to caption? Should I say it's a pdf of the book? Also, is it William Newton Hartshorn's home on the cover? FloridaArmy (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes
Talk:Steropodon

message: Is this maybe part of the Ornithorhyncidae?--216.228.163.41 02:31, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "The holotype is a right mandible, which seems to work at the Australian Museum."
Um? Does the fossil... have a job, or...? DS 23:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Working? 

message: (same as for the Kollikodon) I do not see any sources claiming classification of the species into mammals while the article is going into even more details putting it into monotreme mammals. I would like to see how one have proved the method of birth-giving just from few fossilized teeth.
If it is someone with a scientific reputation making assumptions based on similarities with living mammals and/or DNA-analysis, it would be fine but has to be properly stated! -- Goldie (tell me) 19:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mammal? Monotreme? 

message: The image is a coati (a relative of raccoons). It's not good image for the article. This one is.
--4444hhhh (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: I have uploaded a steropodon jaw image but I am not able to format it properly on the article page, it is appearing right at the bottom, not looking nice, I hope someone is able to figure out how to properly place it! THanksLilaac (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  steropodon image 

message: The text includes citations by Pascual, and Woodburne (2003), but these works do not appear in the list of references. Old Father Time (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: The family Steropodontidae includes only one indisputable (type) genus: Steropodon. The phylogenetic position of the second genus, Teinolophos, has never seemed to be well established, and it has recently been proposed to place it in its own family, Teinolophidae . While we shouldn't unconditionally accept any new hypotheses, I don't think it makes sense to create a separate page for such a controversial family. One could simply redirect Steropodontidae to Steropodon and explain the systematic difficulties in the last article. HFoxii (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a reasonable request.  I say go for it.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal: [[Steropodontidae]]