lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Vampire lifestyle/Archive 3

message: Quoth Gabrielsimon: "m ... books." (edit summary re. reversion of version at 01:25, 20 Jun 2005 to one older)
Gabrielsimon: Any books in particular?  Or a website?  Or perhaps, at very least, a comprehensible explanation?  I am reverting your changes because they are clearly neither factual or within the reasonable domain of logic.  Of course there were some Victorian influences, however there were presumably many others as well, and the links are certainly dubious (especially in the case of teenagers who are extremely unlikely to be scholars of the Victorian era).  If you wish to revert it further, please explain your changes here first.  Falcon 04:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion war re. influences (in heading) 

message: I understand that the comments which I am going to archive are not terribly old.  However, the discussions are inactive and no longer relevant as this article looks nothing like the version we were arguing over, and DreamGuy is no longer in the debate.  They are clutter and make the page difficult to load and manipulate.  I am archiving the conversations "Cleanup" through to "Removals" inclusive.  Falcon 04:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archival 

message: The subsections "The thirst", "Creation of new vampires" and "Food sources" are completely unreferenced. Can verifiable cites be provided for these, please? -- The Anome 23:05, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
:It will be done.  Falcon 06:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreferenced sections
Talk:Biological determinism

message: — Assignment last updated by Sunsh1n3d011 (talk) 07:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Policy Analysis - Summer Session22

message: A review by scientist Denis Noble of a new book entitled "How Life Works: A User’s Guide to the New Biology" (2024) by Philip Ball (editor of the journal Nature) may be worth considering? - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 11:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:   Book ''"[[How Life Works]]"'' (2024) worth considering?
Talk:Altazimuth mount

message: Hello.  I was browsing the various telescope mount articles recently (see Telescope mount, Altazimuth_mount, Equatorial mount, Dobsonian), and I'd like to propose merging them into a single Telescope mount article.  Does anyone have any thoughts about this?  If so, could you please visit Talk:Telescope_mount#What.27s_the_role_of_this_article and perhaps comment?  Izogi 04:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging telescope mount articles 

message: :Until roughly the 1960s, altazimuth mounts were considered a poor alternative to equatorial mounts due to their inability to follow diurnal motion by rotation about a single axis.
Moved above to talk because Albert G. Ingalls would not be a source on this, he was dead before the 1960's and therefor could not make a comparison of "considerations" in different decades. Needs some secondary sources. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: rm'ed (some for the second time) this series of statements since they are not supported by citation, contain weasel words such as "have often been preferred",  make no sense in general. Also this---> "simplified design" is an eateregg, please see WP:EGG. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: History of the Altazimuth mount

message: Alt-azimuth mounts are used for many applications besides holding telescopes. Large numbers of them, for example, hold heliostat mirrors in solar-thermal power stations. The largest such stations have more than a thousand heliostats, each with an alt-az mount. So let's not write this page with too much concentration on telescopes, nor with too much comparison with equatorial mounts, which are not useful for heliostats, cameras, antennas, etc..
DOwenWilliams (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's not all about telescopes!
Talk:Communes of the Lot department

message: I propose that the related articles that are 1 sentence stubs be grouped up in some fashion. There is nothing to learn from these articles at all. Even though there is notability (slight, but notability none-the-less), I see no reason to have 300+ articles that give you less information than a telephone book. Jcmcc450 (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge/Grouping
Talk:Dragunov

message: I propose that the article be moved to the page 'SVD rifle' and this page ('Dragunov') be made a disambiguation page. The SVD is only really known as the 'Dragunov' in American gun hobbyist circles, and being the designer's (and a few other person's as well) last name, I feel that this move is justified. Unless anyone comes up with a compelling reason not to, I will do this move sometime next week.
Moonshiner 04:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move the article to SVD rifle and make Dragunov a disambiguation 

message: There's an amazing video here of an American medic getting hit by a Dragunov in Iraq.  He gets knocked off his feet, gets back up, locates the sniper, calls for support, and later applies first aid to the man who shot him.  His body armor stopped the round from penetrating and left only a bruise.  I don't know if this is something that should be linked to in the article, but it's certainly interesting stuff.--Daveswagon 04:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some sort of video 

message: It's piqued my curiousity and before I do any research I was wondering if there was a reason why this article was changed from reading along the lines 'the Dragunov is based on the AK' to 'the Dragunov resembles the AK but has different internals'.  It seems the article is a little confusing since it states that the action on the Dragunov is the same as that on the AK.  I know it's chambered for a different round but it sounds an awful lot like Dragunov took the AK design, rechambered it, gave it a different barrel, and called it good.  Sounds like basing it on the AK to me.
I guess the question is this: what are the drastic differences between the two that justifies the statment that the two weapons have little in common?
Zytsef 09:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, thanks for the correction.  Zytsef 22:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resemblence to AK
Talk:Sinawi

message: I noticed that "instruments used" includes "two flutes" as well as "daegeum". Am I wrong in thinking daegeum is a flute? Does this mean that  two flutes as well as a daegeum are used, or that two flutes including at least one daegeum are used? Can someone please amend this? There is no citation either, so I can't look at that to check
Chartrekhan (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instruments used?
Talk:NSA (disambiguation)

message: A misguided redirect in a global resource caused just over 5000 page viewers seeking "NSA" to be redirected to the National Security Agency in the month of November without brakes and the redirect was introduced by a nameless Wikipedia editor who seems to think that the initials NSA 'are the same as' or primal to the National Security Agency despite the initials being used prior to their very existence as a company of the United States government. The statistics indicate that during the past year just over 66,000 views encountered by the NSA redirect rather than disambiguation page compared to the nearly 900,000 that the National Security Agency actually received were flawed and more than 60% of Wikipedia users were misdirected by the redirect, those 60% were looking for non-state actor and over thirty other possible results, that is 31,000 misguided users who would have been better served by this disambiguation page so I have corrected the redirect to favor transparency and reflect the encyclopedic policy of Wikipedia. Problemsmith (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: And what evidence suggests those 5000 readers were not looking for the national security agency? Rather than change the target of this redirect causing a malplaced disambiguation page, please gain consensus for moving the disambiguation page (instructions at WP:RM). Also consider the large number of articles that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/NSA link to NSA which would need to be fixed before any such move. IMO, this is much the same case as FBI or KGB or NHS. older ≠ wiser 11:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The great number of pages written by authors incorrectly is no justification for the direct link and bypassing this disambiguation page. The disambiguation should be as I had it as a forward progression, not a correction for those who arrived there accidently, and the disambiguation page serves a purpose letting the reader know that there are other terms expressed. So in essence you are inviting me to remove the National Security Agency from the "TOP" of the disambiguation page. My research when I started this was how many people were looking for non-state actor changing this was not my intention or cup of tea anyway. So have it as you will, it is arrogant and belligerent to supreme the United States Corporation it is racist, nationalist and supremacist with its working in the area of public diplomacy and soft power, a farse! Problemsmith (talk) 13:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: So no tangible evidence then? Empty hyperbole and invective is not very convincing.  older ≠ wiser 13:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  NSA is not exclusive to the United States National Security Agency
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (Crystal Ball)

message: Perhaps it should be renamed to something along the lines of "Pre-release speculation as to the content of Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince"
* I agree that if the article is kept, the title should be changed, but that's a bit wordy.  Perhaps "Pre-release speculation about Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince"? --Idont Havaname 05:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Talk:Midnight

message: Why is it important to pray at mid-night? 41.246.26.180 (talk) 20:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk:Midnight 
Talk:Universities Admission Index

message: I have removed a number of questionable statements from the article. If they can be verified with reliable sources, and shown to be notable then there should be no problem with putting them back in:
*The UAI is not exactly equivalent to the ENTER. Since different formulas are used, there is no way to justify saying that a UAI of 50 is the same as an ENTER of 50. Also, they are not even in the same range, since the ENTER tops out at 99.95.
*It is obviously wrong to say that the total student cohort of the UAI is those who have completed their Year 10 School Certificate. Only those who have completed their HSC (and followed the other conditions) are part of the group who the UAI applies for, whether or not the rankings take into account SC graduates who did not go on to complete the HSC.
*There is no source for the claim that pink slip graduates get free beer at schoolies.
*It is fairly redundant to say that the NSW and ACT versions have their advantages and disadvantages without explaining what they are (in a NPOV way).
Remy B 09:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I too have done some cleanup via Wikipedia-style wordsmithing. For example, the article uses a wide collection of three-letter-abbreviations (TLAs), and I have attempted to provide the full TLA text for the first usage, and also to wikilink where appropriate. The article also makes several claims about the validity of tests, and it would benefit if more citations were included to support these statements. Truthanado 15:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: "The student who comes first in the subject"
What does that mean exactly? First in their school's class? First in assessment or HSC + assessment? – 60.241.151.205 11:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calculation 

message: There's a lack of history in the article. What I know (based on having done the HSC in 1988) is:
* The HSC in NSW yielded a mark out of 500, up until 1988. 
* The marks were scaled to an average of 50% (250) up to 1982 or later. By 1988 it had been changed to 60% (300).
* From 1989 (I think) a 0-100 scale ranking was introduced. I thought this was called the TER (Tertiary Entrance Rank) at first but I may be wrong. Was UAI introduced in 1989, or was there a TER in between? --Chriswaterguy talk 07:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  History
Category talk:Nature conservation

message: I believe there needs to be a separate category for conservation in the library science sense of the term, and conservation in the environmental sense of the term. Brittle Books Program looks remarkably out of place here. Jordaneg (talk) 00:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Conservation (Library science) and Conservation (Environmentalism)?

message: Shouldn't conservation be a sub category of enviromentalism? IreverentReverend 05:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I will start a Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment soon.  I am busy at present (exams!). Alan Liefting 01:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

text: This should be a subcategory of :Category:Environment. I have requested that this category is to be resurrected. Alan Liefting 01:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Conservation a sub-category of enviromentalism?
Talk:Pay-per-click

message: Hello,
Can you add this blog link as reference in this reference section PPC Strategy & Trends to Watch in 2022
URL - https://www.ezrankings.com/blog/ppc-strategy-trends/ Vincentj1010 (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: still i am waiting for your reply Vincentj1010 (talk) 07:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syndicate Relevant blog topic reference link
Talk:Source (journalism)

message: Kinda ironic that an article pretaining to journalistic sourcing fails to cite accurate sources.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deftdrummer (talk • contribs) 04:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ironic 

message: I made "Anonymous Sources" its own standalone entry. I wanted to give it some prominence -- would like to see the examples of faulty reporting from anonymous sources grow.
This is my first major edit to a wikipedia article, so forgive me if I've broken any protocols.
Thanks,
Matt J. Duffy  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattjduffy (talk • contribs) 16:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous Sources  

message: I added a bunch (and sourced) the section about the ethics of anonymous sources, though perhaps the section should be labelled controversy? I dunno. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Added more regarding the ethics of anonymous sources
Talk:Songpyeon

message: Is this photo songpyeon? Badagnani 04:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that is ggul tteok. The shape of ggul tteok is similar to that of songpyeon though.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Appletrees (talk • contribs) 09:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo

message: See this edit. Badagnani (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, your false accusation campaign continues. That is just an opinion of someboy, not properly sourced material. Besides, the cached link is "reliable one"? You just learn and read this core principle. WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:RM, WP:OR, WP:NPA.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed from article 

message: Original research or unsourced content is a big no-no. According to Korean encyclopedias (Doosan Encyclopedia, EncyKorea) along with the one attached English source, sonngpyeon has nothing to do with Chinese mooncake and "moon" shape at all. It is rather related to "nobinal" (slaves' day). So the newbie is well done to remove the original research. So if there is a person to call the legitimate removal as "massive blanking", that would be also false accusation.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: "Koreans also hoped and prayed to help them avoid misfortune." - I'm not sure this statement is beneficial to the article. Considering removing...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeelpoTHer (talk • contribs) 01:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal? 

message: — Assignment last updated by Yaejinhahn (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Rhetorical Practices from the Ancient World to Enlightenment
Talk:RoboCup

message: On the official RoboCup.org website they refer to RoboCupSoccer and not RoboCup football.
Hence I have changed all occurances of football to soccer in accordance with the official naming of the RoboCup events.
--Phanton 16:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soccer vs Football 

message: Under "Previous competitions" it mentions year 2007. I was under the impression that this is still year 2006. Need rewording. Shinhan 16:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed the heading to "Venues". –Mysid(t) 17:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What year is this? 

message: This article really needs exterbnal links reduced. Not only the sheer amount does not fit into the guidlines, most of the links are even twice in the article. If noone volunteers, I'll do it when time permits. -- Windharp (talk) 14:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links
Talk:Turgo

message: It has a sacred grave that is discussed in one of Martin Van Bruinnesen's articles about a javanese saint who is connected with jumadril kobra; it is also a hard to reach gravesite.  It is very close to the village where almost the whole village was boiled alive by escaping volcano steam about 10 years ago. SatuSuro 14:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Friends Select School

message: I'd like to link the "Meeting for Worship" phrase to something more explanatory on Quaker Meetings, but there doesn't seem to be  an independent article (I'm also not sure how common this phrase is outside of the area). Any ideas? --Dirk Gently 06:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There. --Dirk Gently 14:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Normally it is not appropriate to add an address to a Wikipedia article, as Wikipedia is not a directory. Readers can find directory information in the cited material.  Exceptions are when the address is used as shorthand for the building or the institution, such as "10 Downing Street", "221B Baker Street.", or "1600 Pennsylvannia Avenue". --Bejnar (talk) 22:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That Wikipedia is not a directory means that we don't list places just' to provide their address, it does not mean that we don't show an address for a building which has an article anyway. BMK (talk) 23:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if an address were appopriate in a Wikipedia article, say in an infobox, on what basis does it (at that level of detail) belong in the lead, which the WP:Manual of Style says should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. --Bejnar (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Address 

message: The article currently contains the following sentence:
The school is currently governed by a board of trustees divided equally between the two monthly meetings that oversee the school.
For the life of me, I can't figure out what this is supposed to mean. Unschool 02:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Attempted to improve. Any better now? Turtlecrown (talk) 19:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non sequitur?
Talk:Australian snubfin dolphin

message: More information about the description and size of the animal would be helpful if there Is available data.
Annabelle howe (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Very interesting! 

message: What color is this animal? The image on the article makes it appear pink-orange, but I'm guessing that's a trick of the light. --FOo 06:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What color(s)? 

message: Channel 10 News Sydney on 1 August 2008 showed some good film taken by a wildflife department study group, of the dolphin sticking its distinct head out of the water, a few hundred metres from a city (probably Townsville -- hardly remote). The accompanying commentary by the reporter unfortunately gave the impression that the animal had just been discovered and up till now was completely unknown. As the article makes clear, it has been known to science for 44 years, but until three years ago was thought to be another species. I'll bet though that Aboriginal peoples in nothern Australia, especially those that hunt the manatee, have always known of this dolphin and have a name for it. If anyone can verify this and give some local names it would be useful addition to the article. Strayan (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nothing completely new under the sun 
Talk:List of busiest airports by passenger traffic

message: There is a summary on the page referring to how many airports each country has on the list. There is no benefit whatsoever to refer to China as "Greater China", as no airports outside of mainland China are included. This feels like a political statement. The respective airports listed are also listed by "China", not by "Greater China". Please update. 109.68.89.183 (talk) 09:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greater China 

message: In the rangking from 2020 to 2022, the Airport of Incheon (ICN), South Korea is missing. The years before it always placed around the top 20 Is that a mistake or aren't any data avilalible? 37.46.144.10 (talk) 15:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It simply fell out of the top ranks due to the covid regulations in East Asia. According to its own statistics (https://www.airport.kr/co/en/cpr/statisticCategoryOfDay.do) it had 71.2 million passengers in 2019, 12 million in 2020, 3.2 million in 2021 and recovered to 17.9 million in 2022. Not yet enough for the top 50 94.216.68.58 (talk) 07:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incheon Airport
Talk:Ball State University

message: @TheProphetIcculus: lists of Greek institutions are better placed on list pages, since their content relevance for an encyclopedia is marginal. Also, there is not enough reliable documentation about them. Most Wikipedia editors agree that rote listings of Greek institutions are not helpful if there is no sourcing from outside the Ball State homepage or the fraternity's own circle. If you can prove that one or more of the Greek houses is significant, then pls do so, but for the most part, individual houses fall under WP:UNDUE. That is, they are not significant enough for an encyclopdia. Here is an example of the lists, which are more appropriate. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 06:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one chimed in on this, I will go ahead and streamline, as described above. --Melchior2006 (talk) 06:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists of Greek Houses
Talk:El (Canaanite god)

message: The number one position of El (god) among the kingdom of Israel is a cheeky omission that will amuse rather than misdirect Wikipedia's readers.  At El we read
# El (god), a Semitic word for 'god' and the word for God in the Tanakh.
# El (Canaanite god), a particular northwest Semitic father god who was head of many pantheons and by some identified with God in the Tanakh. 
--Wetman 06:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)