lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Robert Newell (politician)

message: Currently subject of Oregon HCR 4 (current version), a replica of his house is a museum run by the DAR. From WP:ORE people sub group page. Aboutmovies 20:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info for expansion 

message: Some refs call him Robert "Doc" Newell, but I'm not sure how widespread the use of the nickname is. Many of the Google hits refer to the 2007 legislation, while most of the refs to him just call him Robert Newell. I'm not sure how the "Doc" bit should be added to the lead. Katr67 21:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And by the way, was he actually a doctor? The article doesn't mention anything about his practicing that profession. Katr67 22:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing in my sources said he was, except the title. Probably more of an honoray thing. Aboutmovies 23:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found this quote from the Oregon Historical Photograph collections: "'Doctor' Newell rated his title by affectionate courtesy rather than by professional training. He was a mountain man when he was scarcely out of his teens, and it was in the mountains that he learned to plug bullet wounds, set broken bones and prepare natural remedies for sick dogs, horses, Indians and fellow trappers." I don't consider the photo descriptions from there to be a reliable source (they are full of errors) but it's a start. I'm going to take out the bit about him being a doctor from the lead, and we can add the amateur bit back in later, if that's OK. Katr67 23:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking the Docotor should stay. That was pretty much the training back then, and it is what he was none as. The Dictionary of Oregon History had him as that too. Aboutmovies 01:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Works for me. Get any good pics? Aboutmovies 18:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nickname
Talk:King Randor

message: I would recommend putting the Filmation image of Randor in the Infobox on the top of the page since that show came long before the Mike Young Productions show... but part of that might be personal preference. What do you think? --RainbowWerewolf 20:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: It appears the story canon has gotten confused about Randor's relation to Keldor. In the 2002 series it is stated that Randor and Keldor are indeed half-brothers, and that they had different mothers, but neither are aware they are related. Unless Randor's father must be truly ashamed of fathering Keldor, that seems odd he would not tell his son about his half-brother. 16:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Family tree

message: Like the other MOTU articles I mentioned, this does not seem even slightly notable. It is 100% plot with no impact or reception. 2605:B40:13E7:F600:40FE:7B6D:17E8:D289 (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: (And has also been tagged for notability since 2020) 2605:B40:13E7:F600:40FE:7B6D:17E8:D289 (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability
Talk:Communication noise

message: Example of communication noise
Yes, examples are essential. At the moment the section on 'Semantic Noise' is opaque. Norvo (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Here are some possible sources that could be used to edit and improve this article:
* Antos, G., & Ventola, E. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of interpersonal communication. ProQuest Ebook Central https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
* Berger, C. (2014). Interpersonal Communication. De Gruyter Mouton.
** Noise and Mimicry (p. 229)
* Fiske, John, (1990). Introduction to communication studies (2nd ed ed.). London: Routledge. ISBN 0-203-13431-1. OCLC 51389613.
** Noise (p.7)
** Feedback (p.19-20)
* Ph. D., Rhetoric and English; M. A., Modern English and American Literature; B. A., English. "What Do Noise and Interference Refer to in the Communication Process?". ThoughtCo. Retrieved 2020-10-09.
* "Communication in the Real World: An Introduction to Communication Studies". 2016-09-29. doi:10.24926/8668.0401.
** Section 1.2 The Communication Process
** Chapter 5 Listening
--Nlutt008 (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography 

message: — Assignment last updated by MammothSunflower (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Industry Theory and Practice
Talk:Scrambler (ride)

message: Is there a more neutral way to refer to this ride universally?  In the U.S., I've never heard it referred to as "Twist"----  Indeed, I don't think anyone would know what you were talking about if you did.  It's pretty much always called "Scrambler" here regardless of the actual brand...  --Rehcsif 20:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  According to this link, Eli Bridge invented the ride concept, and that would show some preference for the Scrambler terminology IMHO.  --Rehcsif 20:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. I've never heard the term Twist in the U.S., and seeing as it was initially (and is still) manufactured as the Scrambler, I would think that's the most accurate name for topic. Michaelmaltese47 (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology

message: One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from this URL: http://www.nfa.dept.shef.ac.uk/history/rides/twist.html. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: The categorization under Variants (Grasscutters, Sizzlers, and the Gee Whizzer) seems arbitrary and lacks sources. If you Google for Scramblers, Sizzlers, Grasscutters, Twists, and Gee Whizzers, you can see that many of them look practically identical: I can't see any large pattern of differences other than of that between individual carnival rides. It's especially confusing that Wisdom's basic Sizzler model is not listed under the Sizzler variant.
Is the difference that some have platforms underneath them, and some don't? That doesn't seem enough to deserve an entire section.
There some information that could be moved to the history section (when manufacturers starting concentrating on ride aesthetics), some could be moved to history or general information or a safety section (the news article about fatalities), and the rest could be in a "Current models" section, if notable enough. Michaelmaltese47 (talk) 01:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think we need some expert input from rollercoaster historians if possible Atlantic306 (talk) 01:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is variants information legitimate?
Talk:Jeremiah Massey

message: I have classified this article as a stub due to its level of detail. Capitalistroadster 21:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub classification
Talk:.32-20 Winchester

message: The ballistics figures in the text seem to be very different from those in the side bar. Can anyone clarify? --Boreas Talk 21:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ballistics  
Talk:WAYS (1500 AM)

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover)  Vaticidalprophet 07:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: WRWM →  – I did not catch at the time that  requested the move to this title in May 2020, three months after I had moved it to the title I am proposing once more.
When this station's license was surrendered, the owner opted to keep the call sign "WAYS" and move it to another station, which had been WRWM, so that, when it surrendered the license, it retained the WAYS call sign and gave up WRWM instead. The call sign change was effective in FCC databases a week before license cancellation, typical of this kind of "Viking funeral", and it is not the first time this has happened (documented instances reach as far back as the 1990s). Titling this page WRWM violates the principle of least astonishment, because the station broadcast a grand total of one week—its last—as WRWM. It had been WAYS for the preceding 15 years. The proposed page title correctly disambiguates from the current station WAYS, which is in the same city.
Generally, we title defunct broadcast station articles at the last call sign under which they meaningfully broadcast, and switches as part of a license surrender (as in this case) or after the station made its final broadcast (e.g. KSUN (Bisbee, Arizona)) would lead to titles that would surprise readers, like WRWM in this case. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 5 May 2021
Talk:Supreme Court of Ontario

message: The Supreme Court of Ontario no longer exists under that name, but it was succeeded by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. In my opinion, the best target for this redirect is Ontario Superior Court of Justice, not Ontario Court of Appeal. Any objections? --Mathew5000 20:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought I decided to change it from a redirect to a stub article. --Mathew5000 23:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the best target for this redirect?
Talk:TN status

message: Why is this section written exclusively for Canadians in the USA.  It is the same procedure for Americans in Canada.  Given the current statistical trend with Americans entering Canada on TN, this should be modified to reflect the relationship between both countries.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.57.146 (talk) 00:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadians in the USA 

message: This content sounds like it is an unverifiable personal experience and I cannot find any policy from USCIS that mirrors this. I've known several TN rejections, and this never happened. There are no cited sources. 
I'm not removing it anymore. If anyone really cares about the topic, go ahead and try to make this entry meaningful as an encyclopedia.Offshore1 20:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stamped "Bad Alien"

message: When I had a TN "visa", a lot of people (my employer's HR department, some customs people, etc) called it a "TN-1".  Is that common enough that it should be mentioned in the article? -- Paul T  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.169.30 (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: TN-1

message: This is vandalism, right? I can't believe that if refused you'd be expected to give the medical conditions of your parents, spouse and children! I'll delete the statement in a day or two unless I hear otherwise. (EhJJ) 16:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the dubious (and almost certainly false) statement from the article. (EhJJ) 13:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: I thought TN only refers to Canadians and Mexicans working in the US. I know NAFTA grants Americans certain rights for working in Canada and Mexico but I don't think these are called "TN".  Can someone verify this? Krubo (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is "TN" the right terminology for Americans working in Canada or Mexico?
Talk:History of candle making

message: "In Europe, the Middle-East and Africa, where lamp oil made from olives was readily available, candle making remained unkown until the early middle-ages."
then later
"The first candles to appear in Europe were made by nomadic tribes in the late Roman era"
Clearly inconsistent.  Does anyone have any information that can be used to clarify this?
Mtpaley (talk) 17:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early European Candle Inconsistency 

message: This doesn't make sense: "The word zhú 燭 in Chinese originally meant torch and could have the Warring States Period (403–221 BC);" Wakablogger2 (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence doesn't make sense 

message: During the 13th Century, the Port of Bejaia fell under the control of the Hafsid Empire when they conquered Tunis. Trading with European ports like Marseilles, Genoa, and Naples, the Port of Bejaia introduced the wax candle (in French, "bougie").
From http://www.worldportsource.com/ports/DZA_Port_of_Bejaia_1418.php  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.121.204.129 (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction of wax candle to Europe 

message: According to the National Candle Association, Egyptians made candles as early as 3000 B.C.E., and Romans before that.  Are we disregarding this information for some reason? Krychek (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Egypt made candles first?
Talk:Mark Sanchez/Archive 1

message: Since the material is sourced, there is no reason to remove it.  It falls completely within the guidelines set forth by Wikipedia for living persons.
JWright0 01:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The story isn't one that's notable enough to warrant such an extended explanation.  The case was a non-starter.  It deserves note, but nothing too extensive --if we were to start having the play-by-play he said/she said for every accusation for every athlete we'd have a mess of very non-notable information.  For a USC comparison of where an extended story of accusations may be appropriate, take OJ Simpson (please :-) ). --Bobak 01:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I noted and reversed the earlier deletion by an anonymous IP of the cited references. Let one editor see these comments reflecting the fact that the citations have been materially changed. A decision can be reached at that point. Ronbo76 21:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourced Material Should Remain 

message: Certainly there should be no restrictions on information from media sources if the references are clear and provide evidence of what is written. If there are media sources or any other sources (DA report, university report, etc.) that present other views or information, then that should be referenced and included in the profile.  I strongly agree that sourced information from (legitimate) media sources should be presented to offer the most extensive information database.  Otherwise, this becomes an issue of one person's subjective opinion of what should be written in a profile, rather than providing all possible information that is readily available and verified by media sources.
SSeas 02:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting discussion 

message: If you can't come up with actual arguments for why this is "notable" (pay attention to the word), then you have no position.  Simply "balancing the argument" achieves nothing if there is no significance.  Now, come back at me when you have answers, but sock-puppets and rashes of suddenly-new accounts supporting any one position have a very low reputation on Wikipedia. --Bobak 02:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you've actually mis-stated the way information on a person is prioritized on any encyclopedia.  The kid was arrested because he was suspected of something, nothing came of it.  While noting he was arrested, briefly noting the allegation and then noting it was dismissed and no action on those charges was ever taken.  If a person is really curious, they can simply follow the references.  Answer this position and cover the points.  Unless I get a legitimate answer from the new accounts, I will take the next step in the dispute resolution process.  --Bobak 16:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To the sudden rash of new accounts: 

message: Bobak is blatantly violating the very guidelines regarding Wikipedia's newcomers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers
Linc Park 22:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers
Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Number 57

message: Please afford lower weight to clearly stacked and transparently bad-faith opposes from Israeli and Irish users. -- Y not? 02:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, the above comment is absurd. As if opposing an RFA is a crime or something of bad faith. --Shuki 20:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to closer
Talk:Užičans

message: The article is quite interesting, however there are some things to be noted:
:A number of settlements? What are the many others? :) Besides, the Republic of Užice was only barely a state. There was, however, the Kingdom of Syrmia in the Middle Ages that was at first centered around Užice, which was one of its important centres. But is this relevant whatsoever? --George D. Božović 20:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm... What does "incorporation into Serbia" of a dialect exactly mean? And the "damaging of the people's culture" and "all are agreed that they are Serbians" stuff? Is this relevant whatsoever? :) --George D. Božović 20:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a basic intro: I had hoped that when people can add more, it would start to look more interesting. Evlekis 06:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The last paragraph 

message: I moved the data into Užice, as I think this unsourced article, which name is a demonym (as New Yorker - New York), has data that is suitable for the Culture and demography section in Užice, not a stand-alone article. Why should it exist?--Zoupan 03:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No special reason, but it is far better this way to have the matter discussed than to make the switch. The merge should be all right. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 04:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right. Tagged it for merge.--Zoupan 06:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest Zoupan, you can go ahead and do as you suggest. I shaped the page back in 2007 at a time when I had a different mindset and I was encountering articles focusing on local communities in countries. Clearly there is nothing outstanding about every group of people in the former Yugoslavia but it seemed at the time that more information could come through and articles be launched for all sets of regional folk. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge into Užice
Talk:WDEN-FM

message: is stupid. this article is in no way associated with WDEN-FM  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrismaster1 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  THE MERGE 

message: So, is this the same frequency (and license) as WDEN-FM? Did 105.3 FM go dark altogether when WDEN moved to this frequency? Perhaps there's a way we can sort it all out, and even fix this article. Situations like this can often be confusing.--Fightingirish (talk) 14:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  A little clarification needed
Talk:Stimson Center

message: This should not be placed on the speedy deletion page. One, this organization is a nonprofit. Two, tone was kept to a neutral tone, and further edits after this post will be to that effect. Three, The Brookings Institution wikientry has similar statements like "devoted to public service" that while promotional is not intended to solicit something. Four, there is no solicitation. Five, this is a nonprofit think tank that hosts a lot of information that could be sourced by wiki-entries in international relations, security, and regional entries.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Huskybear (talk • contribs) 20:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Speedy deletion

message: The Stimson Center is referenced in secondary sources such as The Economist (second to last paragraph), CNN , the BBC , Washington Post   (middle of article) and work of the Stimson is mentioned at University of Virginia website among others. It also seen as a viable place to intern by a number of universities including Harvard. Beyond media and academia, Stimson is also recognized by its work in government studies, including having a senior associate on the Iraq Study Group.  While this article is short, and does not go into its role and place in Washington, I would consider this a stub that needs additions and edits, rather than a promotion that needs to be deleted.--Huskybear  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huskybear (talk • contribs) 16:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Secondary Sources
Talk:Tony Caputo

message: New contributor User:Tonyccaputo did properly add citations for his edits today, and there is no issue regarding that specific content. However, the subject of an article cannot be as objective as a disinterested party. In general, edits by the subject himself should therefore be kept to a minimum. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it suspicious that after posting the above, a new single-article contributor, User:PaulBSullivan, made three edits whose tone disregards the "resume-like" tag. Anyone is welcome to edit Wikipedia, and in doing so needs to abide my policies and guidelines regarding conflict of interest and promotional edits. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The award mentioned is from an awards-mill publication that in its own press release for "2004 Book of the Year" says, "184 Gold, Silver, and Bronze winners in fifty-one different BOTYA categories were presented for books published in 2004...." I question this award's notability, and given how this article is tagged, it's remarkable to me that an editor who appears to be on Wikipedia solely to add promotional-sounding material here is attempting to reinsert this edit. Before it goes back in, I request that a disinterested third-party editor weigh in here on its appropriateness. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: COI
Talk:Palackal Thoma

message: The information provided has been re-written and image was borrowed with citation to the original source. Permission to use the image was granted.
Nice job on the re-write.  Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  21:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled