lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Sogo

message: Independent franchises are mentioned multiple times in the page, Sogo Hong Kong is the same store in branding and layout. It contains information that would be beneficial to the main page. Sogo is a very popular chain in Hong Kong and should be included on the main page. Pacific Sogo is too short to be its own page and it's information would be beneficial to the locations part of the page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrueAuraCoral (talk • contribs) 02:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Closing given the uncontested objection and no support. Klbrain (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge request with [[Sogo Hong Kong]] and [[Pacific Sogo]] 
Talk:Bollywood Movie Award – Best Film

message: I would like to improve the quality of this article a bit more. This article provides the readers with a very brief list of some Bollywood movies that were given the “Best Film” award in some recent. However, there is no lead paragraph or information present in this article. In order to improve this article, I would like to add a lead paragraph or paragraphs in order to provide a lot more information about the topic in general, as well as even summarize the most important points of the article. I would also like to include more information about the types of awards and award shows that take place throughout the year. I will keep in mind wikipedia's NPOV policy as well. Providing the readers with more insightful information about the above this topic will give the reading audience a better judgement about Bollywood in general. I would also like to update the information in the tables as well and add reliable references to match wikipedia's NOR policy.  
Thanks  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prernab17 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a Lead
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Hi5.ro

message: Hi there,
I am the one who made the page for hi5.ro . I am new on wikipedia and I find the whole mechanism very hard to use. I cannot even find out if here is the wright place to answer to the deletion proposal of my article.
I found out that some user proposed: "Delete per nomination and a lack of anything notable"
As I understand there is some problem with the nomination... I don't think so! How can I speak about hi5.ro without pronounce HI5? This is the title of this website and is real! It was established 4 years ago and it has some history back... This website exists and this is a good reason to enter the greatest "pedia" in the world. Wikipedia is the greatest "thing" about EVERYTHING! Who is the GOD on Wikipedia? Who can tell if some existing thing is or not enough important for other readers? And after all, hi5.ro is important for 100,000 romanians and europeans. Please check out the List of social networking websites ! Here you will find some social networks with less users...
You know what I think? I think the user who proposed for deletion the article about hi5.ro has his own reasons or interests. He is not a good wikipedian. That's what we are thinking, me and other 100,000 users of hi5.ro .
Thanks for reading this.
Catalin Stancu (talk) 09:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Filmfare Award for Best Male Playback Singer

message: its not correct. from official Filmfare records Mohd rafi has won award four times and not xix times.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.21.200 (talk) 07:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: According to other sources (also wikipage of Mohammed Rafi) and also the official page, Rafi has won the award six times. Torreslfchero (talk) 08:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong Info
Talk:Walkover

message: /Against/ - Walkover has a particular meaning to sports, while acclamation is specific to politics. Eb3686 10:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

message: :Agreed - the sporting sense of the word is distinctively different.  If a horse wins a one-horse race at Folkestone in front of a man and a dog, it is still a walkover.  You need an enthusiastic crowd for an acclamation.  The OED says "Loud or eager expression of assent or approval, as to vote a motion by acclamation.  Loud applause or approbation however expressed.".  The examples given there support this definition, they are not all specific to politics in the sense of loud public support for a leader or candidate, but none of them imply that "acclamation" has to mean that the person for whom support is expressed is the sole candidate or a likely easy winner.  Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both received acclamation on Super Tuesday, November's election will be a walkover for neither.  The two distinct articles should remain separate.  Guy (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Should Urho Kekkonen and/or his two "special" elections be mentioned in the article. Specifically, once "UKK" was elected by "virtue" of an emegergency law, without a proper election, and another time with the support of nine parties, making it a doddle. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 10:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should Urho Kekkonen be added to the article? 

message: I suspect the word "walk-over" origin is back-constructed? I suspect the word origin really comes from "Game Over" but instead "Walk Over" because the opponent walked away (gave up), eg leaved the match, before it was finished. Because the term is very often used in contest 1vs1, where the opponent gives up by leaving or does not become present to the match in time. (and has then given up)
Its pretty common that words get a backconstruct when its origin is not widely known.
Maybe someone could shed some light on this and find other sources on this than the oxford dictionary?
Sebastiannielsen (talk) 02:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the "walk-over" origin (jockey club horse race) maybe backward construct?
Talk:Petit Pont

message: Interesting . . . but the chronology of this article seems to have got somewhat garbled. You might want to fix it. Awien (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronology 

message: Based on the numbers given in the article it appears that Petit Pont has been destroyed some 20 times.  I feel that the statment that the bridge was destroyed 11 times before being built of stone in 1175 is the source of the discrepancy.  Unfortunately, I have neither the sources cited in the article nor the French needed to review the matter.  Perhaps someone with more resources than I could review this issue?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.163.9 (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many times has the bridge been destroyed?
Talk:Juno Ludovisi

message: *How big is it?
*Antonia Minor should get a short explanatory bit.
*Mixed AD & CE
*Infobox isn't much use.
*"Ludovisi Juno", which appears in the text, seems more natural in English.
*Redirect for "Hera" also
Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Points
Talk:IIFA Award for Best Supporting Actor

message: :IIFA best supporting actor award → IIFA Best Supporting Actor Award — As per other articles in the :Category:IIFA awards Ekabhishektalk 09:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:RM moved as non-controversial. In the future, please use WP:RM#Uncontroversial requests for these types of moves. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 
Talk:IPv9

message: The article should be deleted. --88.73.49.163 00:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPv9 is a hoax 

message: After reading the majority of this article, I came to two conclusions. 
1. It needs cleaning up drastically.
2. It is very anti-western. Mentions the promises that it will be cheaper by for example, "50% as it is being made under the PRC" and "it can be argued that it costs more because IPV6 is American"
This leads me to believe this article is a teensie weensy hoax written up by a Chinese student (as the English is not up to WikiPedia's usual standards, hence Engrish. IP technology usually makes it leaps in series of 2, so the next incarnation of the net should actually be IPv8. Also note that the Article states the removal or replacement of the "English" internet. The author of this article needs to let on.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.144.9 (talk) 14:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding IP stepping, I think you're wrong; IPv5 exists but isn't used, so the logical next version would probably be IPv7. But of course you're right that the article needs massive cleanup (or deletion).--62.20.90.195 16:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Deletion  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.57.39 (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely delete this article.  It is pure, unadulterated garbage. Ayengar (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: This article is incredibly poorly written, and probably non-notable. Some brief Googling leads me to believe IPv9 is not a hoax, but rather based upon a single person's (crazy) ideas. The article states that IPv9 is in wide use in China today, but I could find no evidence of it use. I support deletion. --Alex Cohn (talk) 02:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: me 2 support deletion--210.6.140.201 (talk) 17:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Western? 

message: It may sound controversial and political.  It is, after all, just a suggestion.
China has officially declared the success of decimal networking, which is claimed to be based on IPv9. 
Basically you have two camps of reactions.  One is official achievement and [http://china.tdctrade.com/content.aspx?data=CHINA_content_en&contentid=1005959&src=CN_BuNeTrSt&w_sid=194&w_pid=630&w_nid=9929&w_cid=1005959&w_idt=1900-01-01&w_oid=156&w_jid=
China's media coverage] about its compatibility with current international standards of IPv4 and IPv6 in the future:
Another is critique (mostly from non-Chinese) of its hype and its political agenda:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/813112_china_internet_root_ipv9/
http://www.chinabusinessblog.com/2008/01/25/internet-protocol-number-9-number-9-number-9/
I agree with normal editorial standard, this article should be deleted.  However, the hype of IPv9 might need some counter-argument and necessarily evaluation of its potential effects (beneficial or harmful) to the open architecture of Internet which I personally believe in.
Hanteng (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite, rather than Delete: We should hold Chinese authority and media accountable
Talk:Macajalar Bay

message: For a geographical article, this seems to have a very one-sided focus on the environmental degradation, with little on geography, demographics, culture etc. Even assuming good fate, it's hard not to believe this was created with an agenda. Lampman (talk) 12:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 
Talk:Kitchener's Army

message: Editing 'general Cabinet belief' to 'general popular belief', as the former statement is not supported by the documentary record.IxK85 (talk) 10:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

message: Not sure if its useful for this article, but I just stumbled across :File:Shocking_surprise_What_the_Kaiser_once_called_the_contemptible_little_army_(HS85-10-32062).jpg on commons. Bawolff (talk) 05:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably inappropriate. The Kaiser's comment referred to the British Expeditionary Force i.e. the regular army, sent to France in 1914. Kitchener deliberately set out to raise an army which would match the German army for size, in proportion to population. HLGallon (talk) 07:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:File:Shocking_surprise_What_the_Kaiser_once_called_the_contemptible_little_army_(HS85-10-32062).jpg]]

message: When was the New Army promulgated - or, to rephrase, how soon after the declaration of war?  It would be worth mentioning, as a stage in the chronology of the outbreak.  Clearly it would have followed Kitchener's appointment as War Secretary.Cloptonson (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 7 August 1914, per James, Appendix II to Part II.  Hamish59 (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested improvement - when did it start?

message: I have been unable to find any reference to the K6 group referenced in the article. From what I have read, when the original K4 group was broken up the K5 divisions became the new K4 divisions and all remaining formations were renumbered.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  No K6 Group 
Talk:Pottage

message: I removed the redirect to potage because that page describes something that originated in France in the Middle Ages, whereas pottage was a characteristically British food from the late stone age, through the Roman period and into the Middle Ages. I'm not sure when exactly it started to fall out of favour, or whether "pottage" and "potage" are part of a continuous tradition.
I have assumed that what is in potage is correct, but I haven't been able to verify it. Someone who knows more about the history of stew will need to take a look at both articles and connect them together properly. Ireneshusband (talk) 10:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The two articles "potage" and "pottage" overlap significantly.  Any distinctions that were originally intended have been lost.  The articles should probably be combined.  I'll suggest that formally at some point. MonteGargano (talk) 20:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I noticed that as well and have proposed a merge. I don't have a preference on which title is kept. Spudlace (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: "These were called potage gardens by the French": that struck me as questionable.
It's cited to "America's Intelligence Wire", with no link or ISBN. A websearch for that publication resulted in nothing except echoes of Wikipedia.
I'm sceptical that the French ever referred to anything as a "potage garden", because "garden" isn't a French word.
Any objection if I delete this sentence because it's inadequately sourced? MrDemeanour (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it should be removed. I couldn't find the reference given, either. — Matuko (talk) 13:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: So I removed it. MrDemeanour (talk) 12:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cottage gardens
Talk:Linda (coordination language)

message: This is not correct —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.199.213.67 (talk • contribs) 
[Is that information really necessary ? I wouldn't even dream of following the link to insure that this is correct]The language name seems to be a pun on Ada's tribute to Ada Lovelace, referring to Linda Lovelace who became known as an actress in the porn movie Deep Throat http://www.kamat.com/vikas/blog.php?BlogID=261.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.101.36.59 (talk) 13:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Love to fine  Judy  kaye    born   Oct  18  1980 ,brother  Roger   Dean  Dec   9 ,1981 ,   Judy kaye   born   in  Florida    Roger  Dean   born   in  nc      mother   Vicky   father    Roger   aunt   Judy   sister Mary   Faye    ﻿ Lindasueeckliff (talk) 02:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  hi 
Talk:Norfolk and Western 475

message: The article states that 475 was stored at Roanoke until it was scrapped in 1961.  I am fairly sure this is not correct, as I've seen photographs of it on display in Bristol in 1960 or 1961.
It would also be worth noting the (remarkably garish) decorations that were added to it for the 1957 excursion to make it look more like a 1900-era locomotive.  Most notable was a fake balloon stack fitted around the actual stack, but also there was a lot of gold-painted trim and gold stars on the front footboards.  I would guess (without evidence) that this decoration and the accompanying repainting is why it was chosen for display in Bristol, and that being displayed in Bristol is why it was scrapped late enough to be chosen for preservation.
107.128.213.247 (talk) 09:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing pre-preservation history? 

message: I think it's a useful article.  It came up first in my Web search.  It could be expanded upon, of course.  It didn't tell how the loco came to be preserved, for example  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.150.56.99 (talk) 12:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  untitled 

message: The video is literally trending among rail-fans in Twitter Ricardo.Pazos. (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who said that the video was taken down? 

message: I changed the "Accident" heading from a level 2 heading to a level 3 heading in this edit. As I noted in the edit summary, making this a level 2 heading is giving the incident WP:UNDUE weight. This was a minor accident that resulted in the locomotive being out of service for a grand total of five days. That's five days out of an engine that's been in service for almost 120 years. The incident is simply not notable enough to merit a level 2 heading; furthermore, the incident is part of the engine's history and therefore it's logical to include it under the broader history heading. 
An IP editor reverted this edit;  changed it back; and then the same IP editor reverted it back again. I am inviting the IP editor to discuss the issue here. Aoi (青い) (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accident heading level
Talk:KCAP

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.  – robertsky (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose: Per DISAMBIG and page naming rules. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Radio Stations has been notified of this discussion. Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Disambiguation has been notified of this discussion. Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

text: Support There seriously needs to be a bot to do this after six months. WDDO and KCAP need hatnotes added. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

text: Support: Most of these overdisambiguations that may be against what naming conventions suggest are probably as much because users without certain rights cannot overwrite most redirects as anything else. Repairing them—and these four are not the only ones, I think—is a matter that tends not to be as much as a top priority as it could be. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

text: Support:  Sometimes, there's a lot of Broadcast disambiguations which are just overkill, so yea, I do support that. Also, I can't really do anything to stop this problem from getting fixed. mer764KCTV5(Talk) 13:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

text: Support per nom. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 1 March 2024
Talk:Erich von Selle

message: Sig RS coverage not found link, just passing mentions. 
Successful completion of missions (sorties flown, # of enemy aircraft shot down, etc) is not part of SOLDIER. A MilHist RfC on this topic has failed to gain consensus in May of 2017: 
*MilHist:RfC on the notability of flying aces.
Hence the redirect. 
K.e.coffman (talk) 02:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: On further inspection, the subject did command a number of air wings. However, I consider SOLDIER to be rather generous when it comes to air wings. The equivalent unit for land forces would be a division, commanded by a general. Since the commanders are almost never generals, the air wings seem to be closer to regiments when it comes to assuming notability for commanders. In any case, the article is completely unsourced and is better as a redirect. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability
Talk:I Thought I'd Seen Everything

message: The new song was written by Adams, Eliot Kennedy and RJ Lange.
RJ Lange may have written a song with the same title, but that is not relevant to this song at all.
This is not a cover version, it's completely original.
Michelle1 (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's no reason to remove information from Wikipedia. I've corrected the section title to 'version' instead of cover, as it is a 'version' as it is the basically same chorus (minus a few words). If it had been the same title and totally different phrasing, I would have agreed with you. Also each of the songs are not notable enough by themselves to have independent articles on Wikipedia. You can try spliting the articles, but most likely both'll be deleted, sadly. SkeletorUK (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  writer credits on the song 

message: you can see a news link on this subject at:
http://www.bryanadams.com/index.php?target=news
it states quite plainly that it is two different songs and the title (and its co-writer) are the only similarities musically and lyrically.
cheers Michelle1 (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  News Link on this subject 
Talk:Master of Computational Finance

message: Hi all.
I intend to redirect the following pages - 
*Master of Financial Engineering
*Master of Computational Finance
- to Master of Quantitative Finance (since its title is most generic) and to rewrite. 
Please see Talk:Master of Quantitative Finance  and post any comments there.
Fintor (talk) 11:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Equity ratio

message: Was not copied from external page, parts of the description only relate to another wikipedia-page. Bahnemann (talk) 11:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please could you identify which Wikipedia article, for licensing purposes. Thanks. CIreland (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure: Debt to equity ratio KR Bahnemann (talk) 09:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bot error

message: I have added a cleanup tag, as this article is a bit of a mess. The definition is present twice, both time just placed on the page with no context around it, and the example is using some pretty questionable (<=>) characters.
Caleb Withers (talk) 20:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup Tag