lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:National Aeronautics and Space Act

message: This phrase is highly dubious:
:"the previously created National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, a military-based tribunal, was converted ..."
A military tribunal is a military court, which NACA certainly was not. Also, how well verified is it that NACA was military in nature? (Even though the Army Air Forces and the Air Force may have been likely sources of aeronautical info.)
Also, the act states that NACA "on the effective date of this section [(301]], shall cease to exist." This was ninety days after the law's enactment, near October 1.  JustinTime55 (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Military tribunal?

message: This page was originally designed to cover the original act passed in 1958. Some people have tried to add provisions which are in the current act, added sometime later; for example:
*Seek and encourage the fullest commercial use of space
Granted, the page as currently written is actually like a stub. It could stand adding some structure, with an original section and an "amendments" section. This needs sources. A 2010 version of the act is linked in the references, but it might take some research to find out exactly when certain parts were changed or added. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amendment history of the act 
Talk:Harbour Centre

message: I don't know what the Wikipedia policy of removing tags is but I have removed the "context" tag from this article. I believe I have improved it substantially from what it was before. Feel free to add. -Luckyluke January 3, 2006
:Not bad, but I thought it reads a bit too much like a touristy promotional brochure. I've removed or re-worded parts that I thought were POV. Also dug up more information regarding the building's actual height. - Hinto 08:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Anyone know if the Department of Fisheries and Oceans still operates out of the building? -- œ™ 04:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: DFO
Talk:List of Church of England dioceses

message: Intrudes over the box listing the dioceses and their foundation, obscuring the information therein. Can somebody reposition it?Jatrius 23:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume the problem is with your browser as it shows up fine on my screen. -- SECisek 20:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I use Internet Explorer, which I am told is horrid, but it seems to work fine for me.  Asking your question here might get a better response. -- SECisek 15:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Anglicanism Box

message: As these are part of England, why are they listed separately from England?DanTrent (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the Diocese of Truro, apparently, which is listed. Wikidwitch (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Isles of Scilly
Category talk:Christian writers

message: Since Christian writers minister to others with their writings, shouldn't this category be in the christian ministers category? --Jason Gastrich 21:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't know that was the current description for the Christian ministers category. Since the category has been expanded, it may be a good idea to expand the definition of it. Thoughts? --Jason Gastrich 22:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: * It seems to me that if we expand the Christian ministers category to include anybody who "ministers" to others, it muddies the category to the point where it's pretty much a duplicate of the Christian people category, since nearly all Christians minister in one way or another. -- MisterHand 22:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are only 11 articles in Christian people, so I didn't know it existed! I agree. Let's keep Christian ministers as it is and use Christian people as I was using Christian ministers. I'm sorry for muddying the two. Thanks for your help. --Jason Gastrich 23:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian ministers category 

message: Shouldn't C.S. Lewis be included in this category?Vorbee (talk) 17:33, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: OK since no one else has put Lewis in this category I have added him myself. Vorbee (talk) 18:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: C.S. Lewis
Talk:Bongbong Marcos

message: He did not win by a landslide. This is biased speech right in the opening paragraph and is not supported by the source. I understand that Pope administered nations are preferred to have dictators as the leadership (see Spain), but this doesnt mean you can just use Orwellian speech.95.171.194.45 (talk) 04:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: What wording would you prefer? Landslide seems pretty reasonable as per the source he got 30.8 million votes with the runner up receiving 14.7 million. Cannolis (talk) 05:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 May 2023 

message: Please add the template by using "Redirect" template: "Bongbong" redirects here. For other uses, see Bongbong (disambiguation).
Thank you. Guyrichtheman (talk) 13:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This has already been done by someone else. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 June 2023 

message: Request to change "at five to 13 billion dollars" in introduction to "at 5 to 13 billion dollars" for number consistency Placeholderer (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me!  21:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 August 2023 

message: I want to make an edit request for correction and academic purposes. Mendozawella (talk) 12:14, 13 September 2023 (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.  BelowTheSun  (T•C) 12:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 September 2023 

message: Remove "kleptocrat and dictator" from leade paragraph. Not WP:NPOV 207.96.32.81 (talk) 14:23, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: That isn't what WP:NPOV means. The first sentence in the policy states:  Reliable sources call Ferdinand Marcos a kleptocrat and dictator, and so that is what is written here. Tollens (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Which sources? President is an agreed on all reliable sources. This is clearly WP:BIAS207.96.32.81 (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you've read the essay you linked to as it's not relevant to the discussion at hand. XeCyranium (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: what a lot of rubbish,Estate Tax has nothing to do with beneficiaries, go and read the rules  before open your mouth ! 2A00:23C7:8E00:DC01:4C78:D48A:ABFB:9A71 (talk) 11:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kleptocrat and dictator not sourced
Talk:Chronology of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (Latter-day Saints)

message: I just finished browsing through "Chronology of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles" and fixing a few errors. I was wondering: Would it be possible to provide a historical listing of the members of the Quorum of the Twelve according to the death dates and excommunication dates set herein? Here's what I mean.
We know from the Explanatory Explanation of the Doctrine and Covenants that the first ever Quorum of the Twelve in the Church was composed of the following: Thomas B. Marsh, David W. Patten, Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball,Orson Hyde, William E. McLellin, Parley P. Pratt, Luke Johnson, William Smith, Orson Pratt, Lyman E. Johnson, and John F. Boynton.
We also know that as of November 2004-present, the Quorum is composed of the following brethren: Boyd K. Packer, L. Tom Perry, Russell M. Nelson, Dallin H. Oaks, M. Russell Ballard, Joseph B. Wirthlin, Richard G. Scott, Robert D. Hales, Jeffery R. Holland, Henry B. Eyring, Dieter F. Uchtdorf and David A. Bednar.
But what about the years in between? From one year to the next, there is no way to see exactly who was in the quorum in order of seniority with some serious backtracking. Now, maybe I'm just weird that way, but if it were up to me, I'd create such a page. I took some time today to sort through the years listed in the Chronology, and I think I could probably compose such a page if invited to do so. Thanks.
Signed
209.90.93.10 21:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've composed a chart that allows you to do this now for any date from 1835 to present. SESmith 08:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Zaya Pandita

message: * This page should be renamed/moved to Zaya Pandit instead of Zaya Pandita. thanks. Calmouk 22:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll move it (on your authority, not being an expert on this) but in future, as a logged in user, all you have to do is click "move" at the top of the page to move it yourself; for the larger articles there should be some discussion first though... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Editorial page

message: Location info should be confirmed. Deirdre 22:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

message: With the proposed redirect being around since January 2010 and this page seeming pretty moribund, I went ahead boldly and redirected it.  Let me know here if you object and we can discuss, but I don't think there's any information that would belong here but not there, making it a good target for a redirect. Meelar (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirected to [[Editorial]]
Talk:Peter Whittle (mathematician)

message: The status of the various nationality based categories is confused at best. The naming schema doesn't make at all clear whether e.g. a British mathematician must be so by birth or by spending many years in the country. As a result, I have categorised Whittle into both the New Zealand and Britain versions of the categories; this is reasonably appropriate anyway since he has practised his craft in both countries and received recognition in both for doing so. There is not a NZ subcategory of :Category:Statisticians and so to avoid unbalancing things, I have not categorised him as only a British statisitician, leaving him instead simply in the root category. -Splashtalk 22:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A note on categories

message: This page currently says:
After schooling at the Duke of Wellington Boys' College
I have never heard of the Duke of Wellington Boys' College. However the NZIMA newsletter centrefold (for what it is worth it really is the physical centre pages) tells us that Peter was
Dux of Wellington Boys' College
which makes a lot more sense! For those of you not influenced by the Scottish education system the Dux is the top scholar at a secondary school. There is currently  no school in Wellington called  Wellington Boys' College, but there is a boys-only school called Wellington College, and there is a Wellington Girls' College, so I suspect that this is an error in the NZIMA article. I'll away and make the changes now. cheers Neil Leslie 09:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets just remove it and lets a published bio on him explain. I don;t think a magazine is a good source if we are uncertain of what is being explained, and especially with school articles there is a chance for unnecessary gloating (yes, I am that same editor who has been doing the school articles). 202.180.71.156 09:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dux, ducks, not Duke
Talk:Punishment Park

message: As a really big fan of this series, I'd like to see the topic of the responce to the film lengthened, including equal time for criticism. Citing sources may become problematic, the best source I know of is the retrospective included with the recent DVD release. But I haven't done the research for it yet, either.
--DragonGuyver 16:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Responce

message: The technical summary on the right says that the budget was $25000, but the Production section says it was $25000 + $66000 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.167.34.134 (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 25.000 were due to a linked interview with cinematographer Joan Churchill which listed an incorrect amount. I've deleted the link and corrected the budget according to the film's original press kit. – --Robert Kerber (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent budget data 

message: Much of this article seems like original research and/or unsupported statements, such as the part about how viewers had strong reactions, debates, etc... This article is really in a very poor state at the moment. JettaMann (talk) 13:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Original Research and Unsupported Claims

message: Project X is verified as distributor in North Amercia, see here. – Robert Kerber (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distributor
Talk:Hurricane Karl (2004)

message: This should be merged. There is no info from here that is not in the seasonal article, and its effects were more of less non-existant. You should never use the word I in a Wikipedia article, as in when it is stated "as i've read". In addition, this is an encyclopedia, not a weather almanac. Menial storms like this don't need articles. Hurricanehink 22:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, no value to this one. Merging now. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 23:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fine with me. Hurricanehink 23:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: How come this article still hasn't been merged? No improvement on details, writing, information, and organization has been made, yet this article remains. Can it be merged now? Thanks. CapeVerdeWave 19:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its been unmerged and is in the sloowww process of being developed.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No merge yet?
Talk:One Wall Centre

message: I've heard too that the Sheraton Wall Centre is the tallest building in Vancouver, but according to who officially? As far as I can tell, according to emporis.com, the Harbour Centre is the tallest building in Vancouver? Luke 22:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it isn't elpincha 08:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Height?

message: Some links:
* Harper Grey Easton: “As counsel for the City of Vancouver, we negotiated a successful resolution of the Wall Centre glass curtain dispute.”
* The Ubyssey: “City Hall, naturally, was incensed, and launched its first major lawsuit against a developer in 20 years. However, faced with the possibility of losing a major lawsuit and Darth Wall's threat to lay off the more than 1000 contractors and workers employed on the project, the city backed down.”
--Mathew5000 15:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rumour about Peter Wall's dispute with Vancouver city council 

message: :Living_Shangri-La_(Vancouver)Sancho 20:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction?
Talk:Mariamman

message: This page is a straight cut and paste from here.  I have emailed the website in question and am waiting a response about possible copyright violations.  If they don't respond, or tell me it's a violation I will recommend for deletion asap.  Scottanon 22:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I received an email from the site in question and they confirmed that the material was used without permission.  Here is a quote from the response: "I have read and yes! whomever posted that message : did a cut and paste from ourside. No! we did not receive any request for permission to use those. It is alright for us if you want to link to our site." -name and email witheld by me for privacy.  I will let an admin decide if this article should be deleted.  My opinion is that it should be. Scottanon 14:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible Copyright Violation

message: I have moved Amman (goddess) to Mariamman.  Discussion was at Amman (goddess) talk page, and no objections were raised. --BostonMA 00:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion it was a mistake to merge these two articles as Amma or Amman is a generic name for all female godesses where as Mariamman is just one aspect of this worship. Others are Yellammadevi, Kolaramma, Pidari .... .Althoughg some Hindus might equate Amman with Mariamman (particularly certain segments of Tamils) it is not so across South India and in the Indian Diaspora216.95.15.32 01:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I would like to see a brief article called Amman (goddess) that makes this clear and links to this page. As it is,  Amma or Amman has disappeared--The Lesser Merlin (talk) 13:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: http://www.pantheon.org/articles/s/sitala.html
Lisamh 02:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sitala in Bengali?

message: This page should not be speedily deleted because it does not fall under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. The goddess is clearly notable, but the article needs a cleanup. --Redtigerxyz  Talk  16:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested deletion 

message: The photo given in this page does not resemble Goddess Mariamman. Mariamman, being a Goddess predominantly worshipped by Dravidians(south Indians), the image found here is that of a Goddess worshipped in North India(may be Goddess Sitala). So the image is inappropriate here. One can search for how exactly Goddess Mariamman looks like. The present photo is to be removed and replaced with a correct one.  --Praveenskpillai (talk) 08:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an accurate depiction of Mariamman. See her sculpture at Sri Mariamman Temple, Singapore (1827). --Redtigerxyz  Talk  13:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate image 
Talk:Model State Emergency Health Powers Act

message: This article contains a large amount of blatant POV, and should not be relied upon until that is rectified. Tom, assuming you'll read this, even though you'll be happy this is so clearly against the act (even though it doesnt mention vaporization) It'd be helpful to Wikipedia and our class if you made this article not suck.
:The article could use a more accurate revision AVKent882 (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 
Talk:Troy Glaus

message: WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive
Nearly a B. Maybe a couple more references.
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 20:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 

message: This data needs to be divided up into sections, and a lot of links are missing. appzter 22:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikify
Talk:Lusty Lady

message: The reference to Lusty Lady in the TV series pilot Millennium was deleted as "pointless trivia". The section header, "Miscellaneous", was indeed ill-conceived, and I changed it to "Popular culture references". Other than that, I don't see how removal of this fact helps our readers: we should let the judgement of whether this trivia is pointless or not confidently up to them. The trivia lacked a source, so I added one. AxelBoldt 03:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Millennium 
Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Talrias

message: This RfC is an appropriate use of the Requests for Comment system. Filing an RfC against yourself is illogical, and the subject of it doesn't seem to be something that needs to come here. There's also no evidence of an attempt to resolve this elsewhere, and really, this isn't the appropriate medium for something like this. I'm sure if you want comments on your own conduct, you can use other mediums than an RfC. Hedley 22:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree - no one's forcing people to comment on this page and I created this page in a good faith attempt to solicit feedback on my actions. I am requesting comments, a request for comments is absolutely the right place to do it. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on appropriateness of this RFC 

message: Rd232's "Inside view" states "One of them (FeloniousMonk) didn't participate in the discussion at any point, and the other had significant prior history with Marsden, which made the pre-emption of ongoing discussion even more frustrating."  Reviewing the block log, I can only conclude that I must be the "other", and would like clarification as to what Rd232 regards as my "significant prior history with Marsden"...  This statement casts my actions in doubt without addressing the concerns I raised both in my blocking statement and on WP:ANI.  Tomertalk 22:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he's referring to SlimVirgin; who does have a "history" with Marsden. Maybe you could ask him to clarify? Talrias (t | e | c) 22:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I was referring to SlimVirgin. I've clarified this in my statement. Rd232 talk 23:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK thanks...as someone else who reinstated the indefinite block, I wasn't sure I wasn't being noted as "the other"...  Tomertalk 04:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, I should have been more explicit (I did say "the same day" though, which didn't include you). Rd232 talk 10:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erroneous statement in Rd232's "Inside view" 

message: I have been away from wikipedia for about a month, but before then I have noticed/watched Marsdens interaction with a some of the other editors here since September. The problems started long before the Talk:British_Mandate_of_Palestine interaction. I will write a bit more later this evening, and possible more tomorrow. Now I will just say that I quite understand why some editors do not want formal arbitration: quite a lot of allegations have been made against Marsden which, as far as I know, cannot be substantsiated. The whole "episode" can in my view be summed up in one word: double-standards. More later. Huldra 15:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some early comment
Talk:Toms River (CDP), New Jersey

message: I've stripped most of this page down because it belongs in the Toms River, New Jersey page.  Since this is just about the arbitrary area of the Twp. that the census uses to count, it does not reflect any real community or history.Trnj2000 16:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scaling Down

message: According to , the 1990 population was 7,524, and the 2000 population was 86,327.  This does not make sense considering the Dover Township, New Jersey population in 1990 was 76,371.  I suspect that the 1990 population figure may be incorrect, a typo missing a digit, perhaps 7x,524.  Another possibility is that the definition of the CDP changed between the 1990 and 2000 census years.  Anyone have any info? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 23:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yeah, it included only the "Village of Toms River" section, which is downtown.  This is why I question the usefullness of CDP pages, since they only refer to an arbitrary area designated by the census that changes every 10 years.Trnj2000 13:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I still think that the CDP information is useful, but I agree that we have to be careful in presenting historical data. Even municipalities change in size, increasing or decreasing with annexations, but they do not compare with the essentially arbitrary remapping of CDPs that the Census Bureau may impose every decade. Nor do I know of any way to discern if there were substantive changes in a CDPs size between enumerations. As long as the limitations are understood, there seems no reason not to provide the information. Alansohn 14:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1990 population