lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Binary and

message: Shouldn't this article be titled "Boolean and"?
:The distinction I'd like to make is that boolean operations work with truth values. Binary operations can work with single digits (which are equivalent to truth values) but also on binary numbers comprised of more bits. --Robbe
::When the operation is done on binary numbers (>1), that's called Bitwise AND, isn't it? Torzsmokus 13:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

message: There is no article for Binary OR; the OR redirects to Logical disjunction.  The Binary AND is just an implementation of Logical conjunction in the numbers 0 and 1.  I do not see how having a separate page for a Binary AND is necessary.  It should just be a section in Logical conjunction.  What more can be added about Binary AND that does not actually belong in Logical conjunction? Liuyuan Chen 00:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Logical conjunction
Talk:Bipolar disorder

message: Studies have shown that individuals with bipolar disorder are overrepresented in creative fields, such as art, music, and writing. Additionally, many famous and highly creative individuals throughout history have been diagnosed with or suspected to have had bipolar disorder. Christmasmudkip1 (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creativity and bipolar 

message: I'd appreciate seeing links to outside references for the genetics around bi-polar. Iamsuger (talk) 13:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genetics 

message: Change "flucatuates" (misspelled) to "fluctuates". Mario I Rossi (talk) 04:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed the typo. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 05:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2024 

message: I'm asking that we remove the comedy/tragedy icon from within the summary section.  As a serious disease, which affects real people, it the subject shouldn't be reduced to a cartoon symbol.  Similarly, readers looking for information to may have a diminished opinion of the content when presented with symbolism instead of professional facts, analysis, or history.
Suggest replacing this with an icon related to the health classification, such as described here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9791613/ 129.78.56.157 (talk) 00:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed several times and can be found in the talk page archive. There was a RfC in 2016 here. Personally I am not a member of the fan club for this image, but it does have its supporters.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove the comedy/tragedy cartoon
Talk:Blackjack

message: On the original bets only rule. This is an important rule in Puerto Rico, Korea, all but the Galaxy casinos in Macao, various casinos in Canada, Europe, Australia, and the UK. This is not an American only encyclopedia. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks -- I was going to mention that, but it doesn't seem like my revert has proven contentious yet. Rray (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone with obviously little knowledge of the subject removing consensus text and then removing it a second time after reversion by someone editing this article since the early days, instead of coming to the talk page. But, it seems discussion is an obsolete concept. Wikieditor* obviously violated guidelines. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  OBO rule 

message: what exactly does a controlling player do as it is not made clear from the article ; nor is it made clear what constuties a controlling player although it seems that it is a player whose bet is highest ==BBLLAANNKK TR41N== (talk) 08:45, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  the controlling player 

message: It redirects to Blackjack#Rule_variations_and_effects_on_house_edge, but there's nothing relevant to it in that section. 89.64.70.62 (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, this is not a rare occurrence. Sometimes an article is created, goes through AfD, results in redirect, and overtime the target changes to move or even remove the relevant reference. There are others ways this happens too. Solutions might include updating the redirect to a better target on this or another page, updating this page with the content inferred by the redirected page name, or even deletion of the redirect. —¿philoserf? (talk) 00:56, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: So, is anyone knowledgeable enough to "update this page with the content inferred by the redirected page name"? 37.47.205.253 (talk) 09:43, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Five card charlie]]
Talk:Born again

message: If the content is in the source, there's no reason to remove it, even if it doesn't make sense to one editor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If we follow that rule, we'll eventually end up with poor quality composition and out of context citations that are incorrect and misleading, on every article. Your position would mean that the first editor a section of content would be able to use tenuous and out of context citations, as long as the words or idea being cherry picked as a cite exist somewhere in the source text, regardless of the meaning the text was originally intended to convey. It's possible that the editor's interpretation of the source is incorrect, in which case there is a food reason to remove it, even if only one editor disagrees. Obviously, it only takes one critically thinking editor to spot (and correct) a cite by another that ignores the context of the content within the source text. Simply replying "there's no good reason" is territory/lazy, the proper thing for you to have done would be to address the merits of his assertion: to wit, that in the context of the source text, the content/language you cite was meant to apply specifically to Nicodemus. - wHm, 05:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you've missed the point: the content is clear to everyone except you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "text and context was meant to apply to Nicodemus particularly" 

message: The article states, "Individuals who profess to be "born again" often state that they have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ" which is simply untrue for many reasons.  I suggest this be amended or deleted.  86.18.18.39 (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This is in relation to the evangelical understanding of the term, and is correct. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faulty information 

message: The article quotes Jesus as saying "You must be born again before you can see, or enter, the Kingdom of Heaven." Where is this from?  It seems to be an amalgamation of John 3:3 and John 3:5.  Should we not use an exact Bible verse/quote instead, especially if we are putting quotation marks?  Obviously there will be disagreements over translation, but the way it is now, I can't even find where exactly the "see or enter" line is from.  -KaJunl (talk) 10:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus' words in the Gospels
Talk:Balts

message: Similarity between the word Balt and Lithuanian word for white balta is most likely accidental and nothing but Folk etymology. There's no reliable linguistics study showing any connection between Lithuanian word balta and Mare Balticum, a name a German person came up with.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.206.100.239 (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  White 

message: "In accordance with the 2008 research results of Russian and Estonian geneticists, the Northern Russians (a subethnic group) genetically are very similar to the Balts." - This very awkward sentence is based on an old work in ignorance of the much more recent specialist literature given here and was somehow patched up at the end in a pointless way. Because already better expressed in the first sentence, referenced to the same team, I deleted this one. HJJHolm (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awkward 

message: The Balts are NOT an ethnolinguistic group (see that article for the Wikipedia definition) today. --95.24.68.172 (talk) 05:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ethnolinguistic group]]
Talk:Black Flag

message: May as well turn this into a disambiguation page, so here goes. Damaged Again
----
I've merged the content of Black flag (flag) into this page, because it was essentially a second disambig. However, I'm not 100% happy with this solution. Links to disambig pages are considered bad, and Black Flag has them, as it fits in with red flag, white flag, etc. On the other hand, it's silly for readers to have to go through two disambigs. • Benc • 09:57, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with this merge.  I don't think black flag (flag) really is a dab page, so I've renamed it to list of black flags and split it back out.  Two clicks is no hardship, especially as it reduces the clutter on this page for those not looking for a flag.  And one should really fix links to go straight to the desired target, like the template advises. jnestorius(talk) 19:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambig

message: I have heard some legend of a Japanese unit using a "rising sun" flag but the sun on the flag was black.  Is this true?
Cameron Nedland 19:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black Japanese Naval Flag during WWII 

message: Shouldn't this link to Black Banner (disambiguation) ? -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 04:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Black Banner
Talk:Bjørn Lomborg

message: A drunk who insists their drinking isn't causing problems, and besides a little alcohol is good for you, and there are better things to think about, and maybe next year, is in denial.
Lomborg has devoted much of his professional career to saying a little warming is good for you, and the world could better focus its attention elsewhere, and it isn't causing so much problem, and maybe in a few years we can do something.
It is the same way a person can admit to drinking a lot of alcohol and deny there is a problem.  We wouldn't call called them an "alcoholist" or say they are "skeptical." Lomborg is a denier. -- M.boli (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you call the alcoholic who comes up with a more complicated and drastic program every year to stop his drinking? And every year when he presents his new plan he admits that his drinking is a little bit worse, but his plan is better? And in the meantime ignores his cancer and his domestic abuse issue and his inability to pay his mortgage? --2607:FEA8:FF01:4E54:3DBD:5499:8EC2:B712 (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Warmist" 

message: : Since the article is tagged as needing tertiary sources, please don't delete this tertiary source. Also, since the next paragraph starts critiquing Lomborg, I think it is important to maintain the third-party reference to "Business Insider", which confirms that Lomborg is a global player in the area of climate controversies. I would ask you to revert the deletion. --Melchior2006 (talk) 12:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence was added on 24 April 2015 by Tsavage, changed on 8 January 2023 by Espoo, removed on 28 May 2023 by PhotographyEdits with edit summary = "Seems a bit undue weight, feel free to discuss on talk". The cited article is by Joe Weisenthal. To me it seems a bit due weight, though I would advocate revert of Espoo's edit per WP:CLAIM. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

text: My view coincides with Melchior2006 and Peter Gulutzan, including the latter's preference for the original version--"In 2009, Business Insider cited Lomborg as one of "The 10 Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics".--which I consider more straightforward, succinct and neutral. It provides global context to Lomborg's positioning in the overall public climate change debate. I suggest reverting to the original version. Tsavage (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

text: Sure, feel free to revert it. I was a bit too WP:BOLD I guess :) PhotographyEdits (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  --Spiffy sperry (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting reference to "Business Insider"
Talk:Blondie

message: Would someone (who is completely sure what the intent was; I am not) please fix the grammar and spelling in the following:
Blond people are also sometimes called 'blondie' that is not teasing it's a way of mocking them. That is because people sometimes make the famous blondie jockes. That's widely spread in Germany. 
Sounds like it was written by a non-native English speaker (perhaps from the country mentioned there).
(Or maybe just delete it entirely?) Toddcs 07:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix or delete
Talk:Bloody Sunday (1972)

message: . Why isn't it in the article? 2A00:1028:8390:C7F2:E0A8:443D:80B9:C02D (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the multiple sections above. TL;dr version: there isn't consensus to include his name in the article. If Dave is convicted, it can certainly be included then, I would imagine. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  missing names 

message: I don't mean to start any new discussions about whether 'Soldier F' should be named; there seems to be no new consensus on that front. But the article does not actually introduce or define the term 'Soldier F' despite using it numerous times in important contexts. This is confusing. If we are going to use this term, in quotes no less, then it should be prominently explained (in whatever manner existing consensus allows).
I would add something myself, but given the previous lengthy debate I thought it best to raise the issue with editors more familiar with the issue. Rwbogl (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I clarified the "Soldier F" definition in the bulletpoints under the Report subheading. Mztourist (talk) 09:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Mztourist What was your edit? It seems to have been removed since, and "Soldier F" doesn't appear in the article body any more. Cortador (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  @Cortador this change: , its still there. regards Mztourist (talk) 07:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: My search messed up, my bad. Cheers! Cortador (talk) 08:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction of the term 'Soldier F' 

message: Change interment without trial to interment 85.31.142.37 (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Primefac (talk) 12:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The phrase "Internment without trial" used in the lead and Background sections has an element of tautology, because internment is by definition detaining a person without a legal process. I think this what  is trying to say. The wording could be changed as it is explained in more detail at Operation Demetrius.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No. A reader shouldn't have to click through to another article to find that out. "Internment without trial" is absolutely a common term, especially in the context of Northern Ireland. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2024
Talk:Copyright

message: I think it's a good idea to put Steamboat Willie in this article, with the following caption, put in italic below:
The copyright status of early works such as the 1928 film Steamboat Willie in the United States and in other nations has been subject to controversy due to lobbying by copyright owners. SuperFeral (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example 

message: In many jurisdictions of the European continent, copyright laws did exist in history but did change under Napoleantic rule into another legal concept: "authors' rights" or "creator's right".  The German, Austrian and Swiss jurisdiction know the creator's right (Urheberrecht), other jurisdictions know the authors' rights. Authors' and creators' rights in general are absolute owner (or property) rights, that one doesn't have to apply for, the rights apply by the operation of law. No copyright symbol needed. Some people think the wording "copyright" can be used for a description of the continental law concepts and vice versa, but that is a misunderstanding. Both legal concepts differ pretty much. I'll start a paragraph on continental law, as a "stub". Please native english speakers, help improve it, for instance by summarising the given sources in correct english. Thanks. -VanArtevelde (talk) 11:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continental law 

message: The redirect Ownership of articles has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.   Jay 💬 06:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Ownership of articles]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Hello. I just created my account today, so please forgive any newbie mistakes :) I wanted to share my thoughts on this article:
The article seems very US-centric. Many sections explain general concepts of copyright and then provide specific examples of US implementation. While it's appropriate to include examples of US laws, it would be beneficial to expand the scope.
I especially feel that the section on Duration could benefit greatly from focusing on global durations. While many countries have the same duration as the US due to international treaties, the differences that do exist are what's actually important. DislekzticBoi (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Centricity 

message: My goldone men killing 2409:4066:E3E:F0BB:0:0:89CB:D010 (talk) 09:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  I can killing inspiration
Talk:Concrete

message: At the top of the Workability section, there is, "Main article: Concrete slump test." I do not think that the concrete slump test article is the main article for workability. This article only shows how to test *for* workability, and does not describe what workability is. Maybe in That article could be edited with the definition of workability.
173.73.25.58 (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Workability 

message: Why is this section in ancient times when the Mayan buildings were made in anno domini??? What's weirder it that it continues then to before christ times. Mirad1000 (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient times: "Mayan concrete at the ruins of Uxmal (850-925 A.D.) is referenced in Incidents of Travel in the Yucatán by John L. Stephens." 

message: — Assignment last updated by Etek6 (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: CHEM 300

message: This claim comes from this source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1350630714000387 which says that concrete is the second most consumed material, at 3 tonnes per person, per year.
My concern is that the claim is made without any sources or without offering a list of other substances that is consumed less. I did some math and confirmed that more concrete is used per year than oil (numbers for oil consumption taken from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_consumption) but without a comprehensive list of substances and their yearly usage, this feels more like conjecture at the moment. Scorpiousdelectus (talk) 08:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The Sciencedirect EFA article cites a book by the US Geological Survey that gives GDP numbers for a wide range of mineral products. The statement could be changed to "second most consumed material from a mineral source", but I think the way it's written is fine and accurate enough to the data available at time of writing. The USGS is constantly putting out reports on material usage that are useful for this exact comparison, so you could look up a more recent edition to support or refute the claim made here. Reconrabbit (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claim that concrete is the second most consumed substance
Talk:Capitalism

message: The redirect Wage labor and slavery has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Steel1943 (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Wage labor and slavery]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The redirect Potential competition has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Steel1943 (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Potential competition]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The redirect Contemporary capitalism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Contemporary capitalism]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The redirect Job creators has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Steel1943 (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Job creators]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The editor 于星 (Xing Yu) has recently added a Defence section to this article. In its current state, it only provides one argument for capitalism, and the only citation is to his own book (A Treatise on the Capitalist Society). At least as I see it, this section is not ready to be included in the full article due to including only the editor's own argument and nothing else. What are your thoughts? Mayhair (talk) 12:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and support removal; that was a really strange addition and I didn't know quite what to make of it.  Unless something is well-sourced mainstream, than we shouldn't have it in this article, because if we included every lone scholar's ideas on this subject, the article would be 1000x the size it is now. ---Avatar317(talk) 23:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recently added Defence section: self-promotion?
Talk:Cyprus

message: The first sentence, starting "Cyprus, officially the Republic of Cyprus" does not seem neutral. Cyprus is an island. Turkish Northern Cyprus is undeniably part of Cyprus, but is, de facto, not part of the Republic of Cyprus. One could dispute rather it's a "country", but to assert that it's part of the Republic of Cyprus seems clearly false. If there's a difference between the island and the Republic of Cyprus, the island is the primary topic. If this article won't be split into these two subjects, the first paragraph should not say that the island and the republic are the same thing. Kk.urban (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seems like a violation of NPOV 

message: Add Cyprus’ minorities to demographics section.
https://minorityrights.org/country/cyprus/ 174.243.152.88 (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2024 

message: Grammar correction: In the History-Prehistoric and Ancient Cyprus section towards the end, "Cypriot fleet were also sent to help Amphoterus." should be "The Cypriot fleet was also sent to help Amphoterus." Cherryfresca (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 18:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2024