lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Estonian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate

message: Se my comments here: Talk:Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church#Estonian Orthodox Church. -- Petri Krohn 08:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fork 

message: 250,000 faithful is not believable with Estonian population count and is probably artificially inflated by counting anybody who has ever went to a church and their family.  I suggest rewording it as "claims 250,000 followers". Digwuren 11:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers 

message: Churches in general don't compete per say. The description in the heading was IMHO POV and see also is better. However, what surprises me, is that the name dispute does not have its own section.--Alexia Death 04:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ive edited the for to be actually descriptive WITHOUT reading the whole article or knowing the background. This is a) for the casual reader b) neutral. Please dont revert without a good reason.--Alexia Death 04:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name squabbles and the link to the other one

message: It appears that parts of this article confuse this for the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church under the EP. It claims that this church has its primate confirmed by Constantinople, but that's not true for this one - it also seems to conflate the numbers of parishioners found in the EAOC article for this church. Vypr (talk) 03:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, looks like it's more unclear wording than pure error. I've adjusted it to be more clear who it's referring to. Vypr (talk) 03:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing description
Talk:Blind snake

message: This article should be deleted, it is no longer needed, all the three blind snakes were pasted onto one article to create a larger, more convient article. Here
§→Nikro 08:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge and deletion 

message: Please see WP:TOL and WP:AAR. There are fairly well established conventions for article naming. There was already this suitably named article called Blind snake which covered the paraphyletic nature of the group. It is essentially in the form of disambiguation but may be suitable converted to an article if need be. The article called Blind Snakes is incorrectly titled and merely brings together content from different pages. Blind Snakes will have to be either deleted or redirected into article will suitable content merging unless there is a demonstrable value to naming it with capitals, plural form and a taxobox where one is unsuitable. Shyamal 05:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion request
Talk:Lo-Pan

message: I was wondering if anyone would put up pictures of Lo Pan. Just wondering. ForestAngel 08:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures

message: It isn't one.  68.159.66.100 (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Real helpful. --97.114.21.39 (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Biography"

message: It says the first sighting of Lo Pan was when Jack runs him over with his truck. Earlier when they are driving to that point through the alley, just after the old woman closes her doors, a man in a black hat is seen who looks remarkably like a flesh-and-blood Lo Pan (not the old man) watching the truck go by and smiling. If that is not Lo Pan, which it shouldn't be for continuity, who is it and why is he there? --97.114.21.39 (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: First Sighting in the Film

message: Is there an English translation of the name 'lo pan'? For instance lo mein means with noodles. I was wondering if there was a humorous connotation to the name selection.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.201.179 (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  lo pan
Talk:KITLV/Royal Netherlands Institute of Southeast Asian and Caribbean Studies

message: I have to say I'm not a fan of the new title format at KITLV/Royal Netherlands Institute of Southeast Asian and Caribbean Studies. It's not common to see Wikipedia article titles that contain an acronym from one language, a slash and then the English translation.  
I most commonly see it referred to simply by its acronym KITLV, both in academia and on social media. Would it not be simpler and more in keeping with Wikipedia article naming conventions to have it at KITLV with a translation in the first sentence?
See this subsection about Acronyms in article titles: "Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject (e.g. NASA; in contrast, consensus has rejected moving Central Intelligence Agency to its acronym, in view of arguments that the full name is used in professional and academic publications). In general, if readers somewhat familiar with the subject are likely to only recognise the name by its acronym, then the acronym should be used as a title."
I recommend moving it to KITLV. Dan Carkner (talk) 16:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  page move to KITLV/Royal Netherlands Institute of Southeast Asian and Caribbean Studies
Talk:Chestnut-backed thrush

message: How can a species of bird not be notable?  It needs expanding, not deleting.  Ridiculous nomination. Nick mallory 09:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say it wasn't notable, I said it lacked context.  There is no information on the page other than its endangered status -- no description of the bird, no discussion of its migratory patterns or behavior, nothing on its eating habits, etc.  Further, there are peacock words and personal opinion on the page, as is mentioned on the author's talk page.  -FeralDruid 09:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If you disagree, that's perfectly fine.  Switch it to  and , and stub it.  Note that there are a number of other articles in the author's contribs which contain equally insufficient information -- perhaps they should all be flagged :  Red and Blue Lory, Hooded Pitta (which describes where they're kept in London and New Jersey, which really doesn't make sense to me), Chestnut-capped Thrush, and Red-billed Curassow (which is stubbed, but basically says little other than that this bird exists and lives in Brazil).  -FeralDruid 09:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, admins Tone and the wub have stubbed and edit the article, removing the peacock terms and personal opinion.  I'm going to flag Red and Blue Lory and Chestnut-capped Thrush as well, as they're currently just paragraphs of text.  -FeralDruid 10:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a big difference between an article which can be improved and one which merits speedy deletion.  Nick mallory 11:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Status of article
Talk:Sexual Compulsives Anonymous

message: There are reliable sources discussing Sexual Compulsives Anonymous. See , . As such, I'm removing the notability template. — Craigtalbert 09:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: user:Scarpy appears to dislike the lede sentence, so some discussion is in order.  (Incidentally, double-tagging if the same sentence strikes me as unnecessarily aggressive, especially after a revert made without talkpage comment, but there's no reason why a consensus on a suitable lede sentence cannot be found.)  To start: The sentence I thought needing improving was this:
:Sexual Compulsives Anonymous (SCA) is a twelve-step program for recovery from sexual compulsion.[1]
and the citation was the book written and published by SCA itself.  The term "sexual compulsive," however, is still hotly debated among researchers and does not appear in any official diagnostic manual.  So, the problem with the old lede was that it states an opinion as a fact.  The word "hypersexuality," however, is considered theory-neutral by several notable sexologists: For example, Drs. Meg Kaplan (Columbia University) and Richard Krueger (NYS Psychiatric Institute) wrote, "Presently, there is no one clear accepted terminology.  In this article, we use the term hypersexuality...as it appears to be the most atheoretical and neutral term" (Journal of Sex Research, vol. 47, p. 181; italics appear in the original).  So, I changed it to that with an RS listing resources for people with hypersexuality (written by Krueger & Kaplan and published in the Journal of Psychiatric Practice).  
I appreciate that the members of SCA themselves probably believe that "sexual compulsivity" is the correct term, so I also included their self-identity label in the lede.  So, to me, the new lede should be rather uncontroversial.
@Scarby: What's double-dubious about it to you, and what do you suggest as alternate text that fixes the NPOV problem?
— James Cantor (talk) 23:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My username is not Scarby. -- Scarpy (talk) 11:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: How about a formulation that frames the statement as coming from that organisation rather than Wikipedia. Such as, "Sexual Compulsives Anonymous (SCA) is an organisation that describes itself as providing a twelve-step program for recovery from what it terms as sexual compulsion". The phrasing is a little horrible but you get the idea. There should be a way of allowing their self description to stand, at least in the lede, but framing it in such a way that it does not carry the authority of an impartial statement about SCA or the status of "sexual compulsion". I think the issue of the status of "sexual compulsion" can certainly be raised in the article and the use of the theory neutral term like hypersexuality would be useful but not in the very first line of the article. FiachraByrne (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would agree with that. -- Scarpy (talk) 16:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, I'll put it in.  Thanks!— James Cantor (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues with lede sentence, Scarpy?
Talk:Gamblers Anonymous

message: There are reliable sources discussing Gamblers Anonymous. See , . As such, I'm removing the notability template. — Craigtalbert 09:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: NOTE: .
EDITORS PLS TAKE NOTICE: The above paragraph cites an article of scholarly work but does not correctly link to the reference. Upon inspection of the quoted area of the research, one will notice that the above portion is taken completely out of context. When the scholar writes that members who stopped attending meetings were more likely to consider sharing "meaningless," he is citing another much older piece of scholarly work. In the next paragraph, he goes on to write, "Yet these studies relied upon interviews without accompanying observation of GA meetings, so no detailed account is given of what exactly was dismissed as meaningless. Further, since a solid descriptive base is lacking, we are left with speculative evaluation."
I do not know how to edit this piece correctly, but it is my view that the above paragraphs are completely unsubstantiated and written by someone who 1) did not read the original research article and 2) has never attended a GA meeting.
The full article, which defends GA's record and practices can be found here: http://jgi.camh.net/doi/full/10.4309/jgi.2003.9.9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twoapplesandanorange (talk • contribs) 14:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on second paragraph in Effectiveness section 

message: Came from link Re: alternate wordings of 12 step, which detailed lots of differences in wording for GAs 12 steps but I'm not seeing the list here. Help? DrMel (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking for steps of GA - surprised they're not here 

message: In it's current state this article is a mess of self-published sources. I'm adding some references of newer literature to follow up on. 
* 
* 
* 
*  (maybe to compare 20 questions to other instruments). 
* https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andre_Syvertsen/publication/338846633_Gambling_Addiction_Norway_-_experiences_among_members_of_a_Norwegian_self-help_group_for_problem_gambling/links/5e3e92cf92851c7f7f265c63/Gambling-Addiction-Norway-experiences-among-members-of-a-Norwegian-self-help-group-for-problem-gambling.pdf (may be interesting to compare with GA)
*  (classification of gambling disorder)
*  (Gam-Anon source)
*  (comparison with GA)
* https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David_Ledgerwood/publication/5969504_Clinical_Features_and_Treatment_Prognosis_of_Pathological_Gamblers_With_and_Without_RecentGambling-Related_Illegal_Behavior/links/0deec534f2f6137efe000000/Clinical-Features-and-Treatment-Prognosis-of-Pathological-Gamblers-With-and-Without-RecentGambling-Related-Illegal-Behavior.pdf (GA members)
- Scarpy (talk) 23:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of recent reliable sources
Talk:Five Elite Generals

message: I don't have the guts to completely re-edit it, so I'll put a talk comment instead.
The 'Five Wei Generals' don't appear in Luo Guanzhong's novel at all. It was Chen Shou who grouped them together in the Sanguozhi.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaTigeReptile (talk • contribs) 00:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uh . . . this entire article is inaccurate
Talk:1938 Australian Championships

message: Hi. I think I gathered enough data from reliable sources to create 1938 Australian Championships – Men's Doubles page (please, take a look at 1938 Australian Championships – Men's Doubles). On the other hand, TennisForum website (listed as one of 'online sources of information' on WikiProject Tennis/Grand Slam Project page) "has virtually all women's singles and women's doubles draws", but no page for pre-open era doubles events – except for Wimbledon Championships – is created. Would you be so kind to explain it to me why is it so?--14:48, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The draft looks good and well sourced. Note that the TennisForum is largely aimed at women's results, including doubles and mixed. --Wolbo (talk) 23:04, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. What I asked, mentioning the TennisForum, is why there is no single page about women's doubles or mixed doubles, then? Either the source is reliable or not. Or maybe there is no single person wanting to create the draws for these pre-open events??? [By the way - I found at least three sources which give different seeding for Women's Singles in 1938 ACh...]--Borucic (talk) 02:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  TennisForum lists the draws per year, see 1938 singles, doubles and mixed. Please note that TennisForum itself does not qualify as a reliable source because it is user-generated content, see WP:USERGENERATED, but they do have a number of very knowledgeable editors on the history of women's tennis so it is an excellent source to cross-check other sources.--Wolbo (talk) 08:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I submitted draft for review 1938_Australian_Championships_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_DoublesBorucic (talk) 15:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  1938 Australian Championships – Men's Doubles 

message: I created draft article Draft:1938_Australian_Championships_%E2%80%93_Women%27s_Doubles. For 'mysterious' names (e.g. Mrs. J. F. McGill, Mrs. C. E. Davies) I used Australian Players: A to Z site to shed some light on them.--Borucic (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  1938 Australian Championships – Women's Doubles
Talk:1933 Australian Championships

message: I couldn't find more detailed sources for seeds than this (Men's Singles), this (positions of seeded players in the draw) and this (when tournament has already begun) which contradicts the previous one in some way. Maybe someone have something better than this mess... --Borucic (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seeds
Talk:Sensuality

message: ffs, as a reasonably educated person, I read the current version and wonder what dodgy non-english speaking philosophy student wrote this.  We're on the case and will convert the page in the next week.
211.30.203.243 09:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call. This page is about as sophomoric and incomprehensible as they come. Although I might add that it has been several weeks and no change has been made. -69.47.186.226 02:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, after another attempt at deciphering this page, I'm thinking it's better off being deleted. Even if we could winnow out whatever useful information is in the article, we'd be left with a shoddy Wiktionary definition--and I'm guessing Wiktionary already has a better one. I see no point in keeping an article this incomprehensible. I'm nominating it for deletion. -69.47.186.226 03:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: this article is empty, here is my contribution with a reliable quote
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/sensual Hastengeims (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here information
Talk:Sex and Love Addicts Anonymous

message: There are reliable sources discussing Sex and Love Addicts Anonymous. See , . If someone could please rewrite the article using them, I would greatly appreciate it. If not I will get to it as soon as I can. — Craigtalbert 09:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: The links for love addiction in this article go to codependency, which I don't think is accurate. Love addiction, as I understand it, is an addiction to the 'rush' of being 'in love,' and is separate from behaviors that characterize codependency. For instance, a codependent may become enmeshed with an alcoholic (which is where the term originally came from) and remain in relationship with him or her when all good sense tells them that they should leave the alcoholic. This is 'classic' codependency. A love addict, on the other hand, will leave their 'person of addiction' whenever the 'rush' wears off, and may or may not exhibit the classic signs of codependency. If I were more knowledgeable about specific differences, I would start a bona fide 'love addiction' page, but I don't think I'm the right person to do so... MinervaK (talk) 01:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: -- Scarpy (talk) 04:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Pia Mellody's book "Facing Love Addiction" (1992) addresses the question of the difference between codependency and love addiction. She asserts that codependency is an underlying psychological disease process that can lead to love addiction, but that not all love addicts are necessarily codependent, and vice-versa. MinervaK (talk) 07:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Codependency vs. Love Addiction 

message: Related to discussion regarding SCA, I am also removing SLAA from my watchlist. -- Scarpy (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Off my watchlist
Talk:1968 Australian Championships

message: Why are their two different WP assessments for this page they should be the same NickGibson3900 (Talk - Cont.) 18:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject 
Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Chochopk 2

message: Category talk:	18
Category:	214
Image talk:	2
Image:	118
Mainspace	13623
MediaWiki talk:	19
Portal talk:	11
Portal:	45
Talk:	1724
Template talk:	272
Template:	1123
User talk:	1078
User:	1122
Wikipedia talk:	259
Wikipedia:	706
avg edits per page	2.59
earliest	09:33, 17 January 2005
number of unique pages	7842
total	20334
2005/1 	9 	
2005/2 	0 	
2005/3 	0 	
2005/4 	0 	
2005/5 	0 	
2005/6 	10 	
2005/7 	15 	
2005/8 	7 	
2005/9 	30 	
2005/10 	2 	
2005/11 	6 	
2005/12 	117 	
2006/1 	280 	
2006/2 	475 	
2006/3 	327 	
2006/4 	6 	
2006/5 	13 	
2006/6 	1404 	
2006/7 	2826 	
2006/8 	1530 	
2006/9 	793 	
2006/10 	1176 	
2006/11 	814 	
2006/12 	2156 	
2007/1 	1858 	
2007/2 	1439 	
2007/3 	2260 	
2007/4 	663 	
2007/5 	1331 	
2007/6 	787
Edit count as of —Anas talk? 09:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Bratz 4 Real

message: ESPN Integration.
Again. This seems like a joke. Please provide a citation for this. IanLamberson 21:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

message: The manner in which this article is written is apalling, I'm adding Template:Db-spam. Sylosin (T/C) 20:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are you kidding me?
Talk:Nicholas de Fleury

message: I suggest it's better not to duplicate material from one page onto another, so I deleted the chunk copied from the The House of Niccolo page.  If there are two copies of the info, then someone improving one version will probably miss the other so that neither of them ends up as the best possible version (or alternatively, anyone editing has to do twice the work)!  As long as all the links are there, I think that's what we need.  PamD 09:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Category talk:Aldwych farce

message: The Aldwych farces were as important in their day as the later Carry On films --RichardVeryard 09:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: The plays belonging to this category are partially listed elsewhere. But I think they deserve a proper and complete listing / category. --RichardVeryard 09:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plays
Talk:Dutch Australians

message: Note: Not everyone with "Van" or some variation of is necessarily of Dutch origin.  Please have a source available before adding to the list. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 14:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Names in list

message: there is a  tag in the first sentence for the actual term.  I dont think the definition of the term shouldnt need a source, as common sense explains it (of course a source for the definition would be lovely all the same).  Here is academic output that uses the term  John Vandenberg 00:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  term "Dutch Australian" 

message: This article does not befit the parametres set by , but a tag has come up. Anonymous Dissident Utter 07:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy tag 

message: Considering the number of refs, and the content as at this date it is no longer a stub by any means SatuSuro 00:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub
Talk:Acta Ornithologica

message: Non-notability issue is contested. This periodical is an imprint of Polska Akademia Nauk, established nearly a century ago (2007-1933=74). --Yuriy Lapitskiy 10:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The main reason the references tag is there is that there are no inline citations backing up the article text. MrZaiustalk 12:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: notability
Talk:Chestnut-capped thrush

message: Did some cleanup and wikification, added bird stub and category.  Not sure how to add taxobox or UICN information.  -FeralDruid 10:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article status
Talk:Business partnering

message: Hello!
I was hoping you could please look for my Wikipedia page "co-branding"
This is my first page that I wrote for a class.
I would appreciate your input.
Thanks,
Mary BethMlease (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment Please 

message: Before there were commercial alliances, there were military alliances, and it so happens that many historical and current defence alliances are strategic, so I would oppose the merger of the concept with business partnering. I think I can find other opposers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  added category to strategic alliance 

message: · It is inappropriate to speak of business partnering having a 'mission'; and the mission that is quoted from Droli is not a mission. A more appropriate term might be 'objective' or 'aim'.
· The expression/grammar/punctuation of the 'mission' section is poor: 'Business' should not be capitalised; and 'key-aspects' should not be hyphenated.
· The article says 'the discipline has beeen developed recently in the tourism field'; but the article goes on to quote a reference from 1985, which can hardly be called recent. Also, without evidence, I question that the discipline originated in the tourism field.
Zoe 01:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Mission' section is rubbish 

message: Да 176.64.14.159 (talk) 09:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Адол
Talk:Ken'ichi Kasai

message: Does anyone know why he uses the Kana wi in his name? His name is written as "カサヰ", when (if it's Kasai) should be written as "カサイ". Moocowsrule (talk) 05:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Likely just personal preference (or his parents' personal preference). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kasawi?