lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Stockholm Olympic Stadium

message: There are now some more images on Swedish Wikipedia. One is still awaiting proper author confirmation, so I'm waiting with moving it to Wikimedia Commons. / Fred-Chess 13:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That reminds me that I've got a few images of the stadium too... Uploading to Commons ASAP. – Elisson • Talk 14:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: The name of the stadium is Stockholm Stadium, not Stockholm Olympic Stadium.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.177.188.80 (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: He had in total 53 000 people at the 2 concerts. That is 27 500 * 2 =
53 000 people. 
I was there and it was not full any day. I still have newspaper clips about attrndance.
Bruce Springsteen always had 33 000 people there. But the record is with Rolling Stones 35 200 people. I was at Springsteen and Stones as well. And believe Me there is No way you can get in more than those 35 200 people.
53 000 is just a joke and very untrue. Peter7777ab (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd also add that the audience number for AC/Dc looks suspect, 32768 just happens to coincide with the 16 bit integer limit. Fisk0 (talk) 01:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael Jacksons attendance is wrong
Talk:Iemoto

message: Hmm... Surely there are other iemoto of significance. At the very least, Noh schools should be added here, yes? LordAmeth 17:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion

message: Featuring a portrait of Sen Rikyu in an article that is meant to explain about the concept of "iemoto" seems inappropriate. The same portrait is shown in the article devoted to Sen Rikyu, where it appropriately belongs. The concept of "iemoto" does not arise in the history of the tea ceremony until later generations, and so even the three Sen families who have had hereditary iemotos through the generations do not describe Rikyu as the first iemoto in their family. Rikyu is hardly a symbol of the concept of "iemoto," and the portrait of him here seems to put a strange slant on this article.Tksb (talk) 11:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rikyu portrait
Talk:Alphabet (disambiguation)

message: See Talk:Abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz for discussion of the merger. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merger with [[Abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz]]

message: There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Alphabet - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 18:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress
Talk:Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa

message: The external link for Bemaadizing: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Indigenous Life (An online journal)does NOT take the reader to an online journal. It takes the reader to a web site that sells furnishings and countertops. http://bemaadizing.org/ 47.34.24.112 (talk) 13:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:TVP1

message: Explain, why RTP1 it's still real by boy from Thailand (is vandal) with Polish teacher. May interfere with the Portuguese 1st nationwide channel.
Properly to be still TP1.--178.56.164.44 (talk) 09:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't refer to another editor as a "troll" - that is a violation of WP:CIVIL and could get you blocked. It's much better to stick to the facts (eg state that "RTP1" is factually incorrect), and provide some evidence if necessary. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's appearantly real. My teacher is from Poland & she told me this. I WON'T VANDAL IF SHE HAVEN"T TOLD ME!!! And I'm ThaiBeyond02, not fun17092008 on YT as you said. Fun17092008 is a Malaysian. Not Burmese or Thai.--125.25.250.121 (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You have been told many times that your teacher is not a reliable source - and you must also not use abusive edit summaries, such as "Boing! said Zebedee is a vandal." Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Teacher of IP address 125.25.xxx.xxx completely lying. This article is fully banned for the IP address 125.25.xxx.xxx.--188.47.107.9 (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is better if you don't accuse others of lying - I suspect it is more likely to be a misunderstanding, as we really don't know exactly what the teacher actually said. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  RTP1 is fake 

message: 89.79.36.104 (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please specify what you want changing. --  axg ◉ talk  15:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Change all written "Poland" to "Mars"--113.53.212.38 (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 89.79.36.104, 6 February 2011 

message: Me and my teacher said RTP was real
188.47 said RTP was fake.
2 and 1, then 2 win.
Counting down to 25 March 11  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.53.212.38 (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 and 1
Talk:The Afternoon Show

message: A date has been set. --candle•wicke 18:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bullying probe 

message: According to this. --candle•wicke 18:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  It will not be axed
Talk:Academy Award for Best Story

message: The text says that the award was the predecessor to Best Original Screenplay, and that award was introduced in 1940, but this Story award continued to be given at least into the 50's.  It would be nice if there were some commentary on the relationship between the two awards while they coexisted and why this one was ultimately killed off.
* I agree more commentary is needed. It initially seems that the "Best Story" award was discontinued because it was virtually the same thing as "Best Original Screenplay", but there must have been subtle differences which need explanation. It puzzles me because in 1937 the 1936 film "The Story Of Louis Pasteur" won "Best Story" (regarded as the "Original Screenplay" award) but also won "Best Screenplay" (its name at the time, and now regarded by most sources as an "Adapted Screenplay" award). That was in the decade when there were just two writing awards. Then compare that to the "triple award" years of 1940-1956, when in 1950 for example the 1949 films "The Stratton Story" won "Best Writing (Motion Picture Story)", "A Letter To Three Wives" won "Best Writing (Screenplay)" and "Battleground" won "Best Writing (Story and Screenplay)". This suggests that the "Best Story" award was actually discontinued because by the time of its final years it distinctly overlapped both original and adapted qualifications in some way, and probably caused as much confusion then as now! Pete Hobbs (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Pollinator

message: the article says that snakas are pollinators. is that true or  it's just wrong info?--200.141.34.62 (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, it's uncited, so I've removed it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  snakes pollinating 

message: — Assignment last updated by Ofrimpong1 (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Ecology

message: — Assignment last updated by Warmedforbs (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Applied Plant Ecology Winter 2024
Talk:Karl Goldmark

message: Is a score of the string quartet in print? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.214.61 (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2006
:Don't know about score. For parts see here. Will check into score in a bit... Schissel | Sound the Note! 05:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: What's wrong with the usual place, IMSLP? See scores:String Quartet, Op.8 (Goldmark, Carl). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: Andreas Dippel's 1906 Edison recording of  "Erzälung" from Die Königin von Saba has just been added to this article (as well as the articles on the opera and the singer). Is this appropriate? Does this very early recording represent the composer adequately? Should we spread audio content over multiple pages when we don't do this with text? Any thoughts? --Kleinzach 02:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As there is no response to my question about the appropriateness of tis recording I am removing it. --Kleinzach 07:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Media: appropriate or not?

message: in case more articles are written, this can be used to recreate template:Goldmark operas

Category:Operas by composer templates

198.102.153.2 (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  sidebar 
Talk:Pros vs. Joes

message: For anyone who cares, I changed the format of the article. Listing the pros by episode is futile, as only the first four episodes were listed. In addition, nobody cares about the names of the joes, and the article didn't even state which joe won in eadch episode. Thus, I changed the article to one long list of competing pros, and added in a few which were not from the first four episodes that I could remember. Feel free to add any more you can recall. -- Kicking222 14:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed up the format of the Pros section again. I figured that since the Pros are split into teams, all of which (save for the Red Team) made more than one appearance, it makes sense to delineate them as such. –Dvandersluis
Any information on where this is filmed? WMGoBuffs 19:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I can't find any information about this anywhere. Can someone (preferably, the person who added that section), please source it? Thanks. –Dvandersluis 13:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Litigation 

message: Dear jesus god this article is unreadable due to the poor integration of contestant data within the article. Any objections to listifying these tedious details OUT of this article? I probably ought to just be bold and do it regardless.Yeago (talk) 07:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listify contestants!! 

message: Charlie Brenneman. He fights MMA now. Just interesting trivia. Mrmcdonnell (talk) 12:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season 1 Winner
Talk:Sporting Shooters' Association of Australia

message: I've flagged this article for deletion, on the grounds that it's simply a shorter version of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia. The SSAA themsleves have said that there's no apostrophe in their name, so copied everything of relevance to the grammatically correct article, and propose this one be deleted. --Commander Zulu 02:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Renal physiology

message: The opening sentence of this article correctly defines renal physiology as the study of the functions of the kidneys. But subsequent paragraphs don't elaborate on this. Rather, the bulk of the article discusses these individual functions, content that belongs at Kidney. This article should be reserved to discuss renal physiology as the branch of physiology that it is, and should include a history of the field, its influential scientists, overview of kidney functions, methods of study (eg, creatinine clearance, BUN), clinical applications, etc. As an example, I was hoping to point to the articles listed at Physiology#Areas of physiology, but only Neuroendocrinology comes close to offering what I've suggested here. I'll have a go at this once exams are over. --David Iberri (talk) 14:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Branch of physiology

message: Terms like renal plasma flow, glomerular filtration rate, filtration fraction, etc., and their definitions are perfectly suited for definition lists (as opposed to the current approach that uses tables). IMHO the approach a bit more visually attractive (see below), plus it helps the semantic web: the latter would help our visually impaired readers and it would mean that our terms/definitions would be more likely to appear in Google "define:" searches. Here's an example:
;Renal plasma flow
:Renal plasma flow (RPF) is the volume of blood plasma delivered to the kidney per unit time. RPF can be estimated using the PAH clearance.
; Renal blood flow
:Renal blood flow (RBF) is the volume of blood delivered to the kidney per unit time.
;Glomerular filtration rate
: Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is the volume of fluid filtered from the glomeruli into the Bowman's capsules per unit time. GFR can be estimated using the creatinine clearance or a number of equations that measure renal function.
Mostly I'm coming from the perspective that this is just cleaner than using tables. I'd be interested to hear what others think. --David Iberri (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition lists 

message: The illustration places the Na+/K+/2Cl- transporter, which is in the thick ascending limb of the loop of Henle, in the descending loop of Henle, and the Mg++/Ca++ transporter, which is also in the thick ascending limb, in the thin medullary segment. Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It :File:Diuretyki.png better? Ruslik_Zero 09:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's not in English, I don't think so. I will ask at the Graphics Workshop to see if we can get the original image corrected (:Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop) --Tom (LT) (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustration is in error
Talk:Christ Episcopal Church (La Crosse, Wisconsin)

message: In general usage, an Episcopalian is the adherent, while Episcopal refers to the church and governance structure. Reference:Goldstein, Norm, editor, Associated Press Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law, 2000, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Perseus Publishing, pp. 84-85. clariosophic (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Episcopal]] vs. [[Episcopalian]]
Talk:Warmonger

message: Having seen the recent comments on the history for this page, I agree that a list of notorious warmongers is POV, but perhaps, for the sake of example, it would be worth reinstating the list as a list of people who are often cited as examples of warmongers, and perhaps even to say something to the effect of, "the word has become ubiquitous in recent years as it is often used to describe current US President George W. Bush by opponents of his administration's foreign policy."  To be fair, I admit I am no fan of Bush, but I think this is perfectly acceptable in that light, particularly because, whether or not one would characterize him as a warmonger, we can probably agree that the criticism of President Bush and his political allies is far and away the most common use of the word.DougOfDoom talk 14:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

message: As much of a Doctor Who fan that I am, I still feel the re-direct to the novel Warmonger (Doctor Who) is a little short-handed, unless nothing else shares the name which I doubt. Agree or disagree?--DrWho42 (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No disambiguation? 

message: What is the other not pejorative word? Is the word pejorative or the concept ? If no other word exist it is not pejorative word.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[
Special:Contributions/99.90.197.87|99.90.197.87]] (talk) 00:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pejorative? 

message: ...for instance British Secretary of War, 1937 – 1940, Hore-Belisha and Henry Kissinger, and Tony Blair could all be listed as examples of warmongers with bywords or more. 
The wiki warlord article is quite happy to name and shame all those 'ethnic' and Serbian 'warlords' and other playbook of Western 'bogeymanology'. Shame this wiki warmonger article is an empty censored shell, all in the name of protecting the untold warmongering Zionists and other warmongering forces loyal to Jewish supremacism, such as may be seen in the Western media, NGOs and Hollywood. 
I note the word: supremacism is needlessly redflagged by the wiki's chosen spellchecker, hmmm?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:490:A600:75A4:3B1C:509B:C883 (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article lacks a list of warmongers and writeups of the theresaid . . .
Talk:T. R. M. Howard

message: The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. --KenWalker | Talk 02:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 

message: Howard's Friendship Medical Clinic ended up getting included among the seedy abortion mills featured in the Chicago Sun-Times expose, "The Abortion Profiteers." Mason himself was sued for performing the fatal abortion on Julia L. Rogers, who died of pneumonia and peritonitis after Howard poked a hole in her uterus. Evelyn Dudley and Dorothy Brown also died after abortions at Friendship. In fact, I had only known of Howard as a seedy abortionist until somebody searching for him ended up at my blog, and I backtracked their search. I was astonished to learn that Howard had actually had such an illustrious history.
I'll have to go back over my e-notes (which I don't have at this computer) to see what else I have on Friendship. ChristinaDunigan 13:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abortion scandal 

message: This was in the article: "He also became well-known as a leading abortion provider and was arrested in 1964 and 1965 but never convicted."
Where is the source for this?ChristinaDunigan 13:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source, please? 

message: All factual material, such as allegations about the Friendship Clinic or his actions, needs to be cited to Reliable Sources, such as academic books or mainstream newspapers/media.Parkwells (talk) 23:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources needed

message: I see you added a COI hatnote to this article. Since this is a biography article for someone dead almost 50 years, what sort of COI are you seeing that caused you to tag this article? Grorp (talk) 06:35, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: See what I deleted from the article. MurrayGreshler (talk) 03:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:   I cannot read your mind. Other than various copy edit bits and pieces, the only thing I see is that you removed (objected to) the raw url citation https://www-clinicalkey-com.proxy1.library.jhu.edu/#!/content/playContent/1-s2.0-S0002962917302860 which I had tagged in April (diff) because it leads to a login page at John Hopkins website and I don't have access to it (and without a title, I couldn't look for it elsewhere). The citation had been added a week or so beforehand (diff). But we have no idea what the content is, and I don't see any connection between Johns Hopkins and TRM Howard, so I fail to imagine why you think that is a COI issue rather than just content that you cannot verify yourself. Removing content and citations simply on the basis that you cannot access them violates WP:SOURCEACCESS; an unaccessible source does not mean it doesn't exist. Please explain your reason for using the COI tag, or remove the tag. Grorp (talk) 07:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI hatnote?
Talk:Letter to U.S. Bishops Concerning Masonry

message: I'm wondering if we need to add a critique section, because there seem to be some pretty blatant errors in the document.  
First of all, it references can. 1364 (which is about penalties for apostates and heretics), when it should be referencing 1374 (the one on secret societies).  
It also has research errors - Jews aren't barred from the whole of York Rite, and certainly were not at the time when the letter was written (1985).  I find it very interesting that the York Rite (which is not an American rite as stated in the letter), about which little has been written (all things considered) was completely ignored by the Church research.
The letter also suffers from using the Scottish Rite Southern Jurisdiction as an exemplar for all of Scottish Rite in the US, when the NMJ is very different, and conflating the bodies of AASR and Craft. 
Also: "The masons of early medieval times were Catholics, like almost everyone else in Europe."  That's a pretty bold statement, and probably untrue, and borders on revisionist history.
"In U.S. Freemasonry all women, men under 21 and blacks are barred from Masonic initiation in regular lodges."  The first 2/3 were right at the time, and now the last 2/3 are wrong, but age depends on the jurisdiction.  Again, the charge of racism was probably more true in the South, but the Church also did not concern itself with Prince Hall Masonry, also about which little has been written.
The letter also uses Pike as an authority on regular Blue Lodge Masonry, which is not true, especially since the letter takes passages from higher degree sections (as one can tell from the page citations).
The "blood oaths" were out of date fifteen or twenty years prior to the letter, so the evidence of "blasphemy on the Bible" that is used to support the claim of "no swearing" is not really valid, although the underlying principle is valid.
I believe that all of this can be proven by primary sources and won't be violating NOR. MSJapan 14:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The way to escape WP:NOR would be to reference published critiques of the letter.  Synthesising published sources would be Original Research (or at least RFC generating). JASpencer 17:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems/Critiques
Talk:Dortmund Sparkassen Chess Meeting

message: Was it Hans-Joachim Hecht, as the german wikipedia says? Or was it Westerinen as  says? Perhaps there were two tournaments, as Megabase from chessbase has a tournament in 1973 in Dortmund in which Westerinen didn't even come close to winning! Voorlandt (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was indeed Hecht, but both of my sources (Hooper & Whyld and Golombek) give it as a shared victory with Boris Spassky and Ulf Andersson. Brittle heaven (talk) 09:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who won the 1973 edition? 

message: I'm not really familiar with the use of the term "heads-up matches" in the context of a chess tournament.  The term is used in poker, but a poker game often features more than two players; a tournament chess game never does.  Does this mean knock-out matches?  Single-elimination tournament is a term I understand in a chess context. Quale (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Heads-up matches"
Talk:Azúcar Moreno

message: This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it.  Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed.  I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy.  In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 03:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  YouTube links 