lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Pioneer Career and Technology Center

message: I'd like to propose that this page be protected so that it will not be vandalized. Benrr101 22:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  request for protection 

message: Where is the Pioneer Career and Technology Center building located, where in Richland County, what city?---OHWiki 21:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Pioneer Career and Technology Center is located at 27 Ryan Road in Shelby, Ohio.---OHWiki 21:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location 

message: I'm going to do some general editing to add the correct terminology about this and add a brief overview for the high school portion of education and perhaps expand the summary of it.
Medianaught (talk) 21:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Editing
Talk:Victor Abiamiri

message: It says in the text he was born in Nigeria but in the infobox's place of birth is Baltimore, Maryland.  Could someone fix this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.57.110 (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The preponderance of evidence, including two of the biographies listed in the references, suggest that both of his parents were from Nigeria, but that Victor was born in the USA.  The one article that purportedly says otherwise is no longer accessible. -- Trowbridge (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  birthplace 

message: African-American as an ethnicity is not "Americans of African descent" at all, it is primarily Americans who have ancestors who were slaves in the US. In theory the Americaness is as important as the African. Most true African-Americans have at least some Native American and some European ancestry. It is possible for immigrants from Africa and their children (the later group including Obama) to see themselves as part of this ethnicity, but on the other hand many immigrants from Africa and their children would not so identify. Until we have sources calling Abiamiri an African-American we should not classify him as such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not clear he is African-American
Talk:De Bello Hispaniensi

message: "The copyists performed their tasks so ill that in the forty-two paragraphs there are twenty-one gaps and six hundred corrupt passages, which Mommsen and lesser men have striven with an industry worthy of a better cause to restore." About the author, A.G. Way ventures[3] that "Macaulay's guess that he was some 'sturdy old centurion who fought better than he wrote' is possibly not far off the truth" (p. 305)."
Is this even relevant. Whoever wrote De Bello Hispaniensi was there, was in a position to observe, memorized the event, and took the time to write it down in a time when many could not write. Whoever this A.G. Way is, what did he ever do other than criticize someone else? I did a google of "A.G. Way" and found "Agway - Lawn, Garden, Pet, Bird and Farm Specialists." I don't think a comment should be given such a prominent part in the wikipedia page when it is from some 2-cent critic. 2601:9:4980:ABD:2919:E233:CB60:2A24 (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for this deep and constructive comment. Sapphorain (talk) 17:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why all the abuse of the author?
Talk:SIUH Community Park

message: Someone needs to upload a pic of the skyline view with the Twin Towers. It would be much better than the current ones. --Pwnage8 (talk) 12:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Go back in your time machine and take such a photo. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image request
Talk:De Officiis

message: There's an issue regarding the following: "Only the Latin grammarian Priscian is better attested to with such handwritten copies, with some 900 remaining extant." The number of extant New Testament manuscripts far exceeds 900. Is this assertion about Priscian meant to be confined to Classical Latin writers? If so, I think it should be indicated. Thoughts? --Clay Bahl (talk) 05:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Legacy" section
Talk:De Oratore

message: Cicero was not imitating Plato's dialogues, but Aristotle's, as he states explicitly Ad Fam. I. 9 - "scripsi igitur Aristotelio more, quemadmodum quidem volui, tres libros de oratore ... aborrent enim a communibus praeceptis et omnem antiquorum et Aristoteliam et Isocratiam rationem oratoriam complectuntur." - see the note in Watson's edition of the letters, too.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.54.125.242 (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Cicero and Plato

message: The first para makes it sound as if Cicero returned from exile in 55 and as if his house was destroyed thereafter.  He was exiled in 58, his houses (the one on the Palatine and other villas outside Rome) were destroyed, and then he returned from exile in 57.  I am loathe to just delete the sentence, but it is at best misleading.Πενθεσίλεα (talk) 04:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments page

message: I guess this article is the work of many hands, as is usually appropriate for wiki.  But the translation and style are certainly uneven, and I wonder whether it would be better to import a scholarly translation & commentary from one of the many public domain sources.
I mean no disrespect to the authors of the article, but we have here a major work from the classical canon, and I wonder what the right approach is.John Wheater 17:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Standing of the translation

message: There needs to be an introducory sentence.  Is this a book?  Who wrote it?  When?  Why is it important?  PirateArgh!!1! 22:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, PirateArgh!!1! !: I have corrected the misorder of the article. Is it all right now?.
By the way, as you are very attentive observer, may I ask your help? I wrote also the article on book II of "De Oratore"; the Wikipedia staff continues to keep the message to clean the article or improve it. I dit it; the message stands. I told them to be more precisely: what is wrong? which paragraphs have to be amended and why? I did not read thoroghly all the Wikipedia standards.
Could you give me some hints, please? Thank you!--Francesco Bonini (talk) 15:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to make the intro accesible.  I haven't yet read the whole thing slowly so I'm no content expert.  Are the characters historical or fictional?  Can we better summarize the plot ( not list every philosophical question ) and the questions raised?  PirateArgh!!1! 17:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

text: "Arghh" is what pirates say.  What you just wrote her should be the intro.  You totally explained the book and its importance, throw in a sentence on its impact and you're good.  I suggest rethinking your style about the body, see this.  PirateArgh!!1! 11:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: I think secondary sources will help put this dialogue in perspective for an encyclopedic article.  See Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources PirateArgh!!1! 17:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secondary sources needed
Talk:Rick Lisi

message: Ric married Rebecca Anne White September 28,1985.  They met in Tulsa,OK the summer of 1979. They have 2 sons Raymond P Lisi born May 6, 1987 & Don S Lisi born October 21, 1988.  They have lived in Northwest Arkansas, Becky’s family home, since 1988. 2600:8804:800D:FB00:DFD:DE2B:2AEC:E912 (talk) 03:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal 

message: Rebecca “Becky” White, born July 3, 1957 2600:8804:800D:FB00:DFD:DE2B:2AEC:E912 (talk) 03:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spouse
Talk:Rank theory of depression

message: If I understand this theory correctly, given the widespread use of anti-depressants, shouldn't we see more societal disruption?  Anti-depressants should interfere with this "self-preservation" mechanism, and cause harm to its users by making them try harder to attain unreachable goals.  Social hierarchies ought to be destabilized by anti-depressants.  However, it's tough to point to these kinds of observations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TrainYourBrain (talk • contribs) 14:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rank theory and Antidepressants 

message: Social hierarchies may well be disrupted by anti-depressants, in the sense that someone else finds themself at the bottom of the hierarchy rather than the depressed individual.
But the individual on anti-depressives could be more functional than he or she was in the past, and may therefore merit a place further up the hierarchy. The reason for thinking this is that, as they entered a depressive state, they may have taken a rank lower than they actually merit, since self-preservation may have led them to exaggerate their inadequacy to protect them when in a weakened state.
The restoration of social harmony, then, must be seen as restoration from the point of view of the previously-depressed individual, not necessarily for every individual in the society. As evolutionary theory requires, the genes of the individual are primarily at stake, not those of the species.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gibsonj (talk • contribs) 20:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The question of anti-depressants disrupting social harmony 

message: Hello all!
I will be editing this page in the next few days in order to add more detail about the theory, as well as provide a criticism section. The edits made will be sourced from papers I have found through the PsycInfo database and will all be accessible to view. The edits will be between 800~1000 words. Maslowshierarchy (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making further edits to page in future
Talk:BDORT

message: I've suggested that this article be merged into applied kinesiology.  it seems more natural as a subsection there, as much of the presentation here feels like advertising and can be dispensed with.  your thoughts?  --Ludwigs2 20:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This article used to be an advertisement, but nowadays it's framed mostly around the Gorringe malpractice trial, because this is where the medical establishment (i.e. mainstream science) had a chance to review this procedure and the implications of its use in lieu of conventional methods. If we were to merge it into a larger article, I don't think we could reasonably focus as much on these issues. Also, much of the early contention in this article related to the differences, if any, between BDORT and PMRT, and we have a section dedicated to clarification of this topic. A merge would dilute or eliminate this, because it is less important in the larger AK perspective, resulting in a loss for those who are confused by the use of the two nearly-interchangeable terms by different sources. In summary, I think this article, focusing on this specific procedure (for which there are annual symposia, including some funded by NY state, or at least there were until recently), and the ramifications of its use, which apparently resulted in a dead patient, should stand on its own for best presentation. Crum375 (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: Hello Brangifer (and others). As you have made no reply yet, I am assuming in the meanwhile that given the above discussion you might not have objections to this reference, but not sure. I think you are still around from the article history page where you are still making edits(?) So I leave this for another 1 week for more discussion time, and if no more discussion or objections after a week we can consider there is a consensus to use the JSHO reference as a reliable source and we can add in the text I did originally (see above please). I hope everyone thinks that is reasonable time frame.202.63.58.223 (talk) 00:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I first saw this now and have amended your comments above by removing your heading and adding the proper indents. You shouldn't have started a new section, but just added your comment to the existing thread. I have also replied above. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking for consensus on JSHO reference 

message: That consensus can be read at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#JSHO_a_reliable_source.3F. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  RS/N consensus on JSHO = "Not a MEDRS" 

message: I've added to the entry to reflect the fact that AITSE has characterized BDORT/Omura explicitly and at length as pseudoscientific quackery, with appropriate cite reference external link. AtomikWeasel (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  AITSE
Talk:National Day Against Homophobia

message: I noticed that there were various controversies about the anti-homophobia day, many of which oppose gay activists with pro-family, pro-life and Christian activists.     ADM (talk) 08:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cultural controversies

message: https://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/omnibus-bill-theres-no-place-for-the-state-in-the-bedrooms-of-the-nation
It's not from the Globe and Mail, it's from Trudeau. Unless he wrote it in the Globe and Mail before he said it to the CBC. 
This is one reason articles need references.  This article has no references.  that needs to be fixed. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 01:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  source of "the state has no place"
Talk:Road Warriors (Atlantic League)

message: Since the team has existed in more seasons as the "Road Warriors" than as the "Pennsylvania Road Warriors", I think it would be more appropriate to move this over the redirect Road Warriors (Atlantic League). -- Pemilligan (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move/Rename 

message: In hindsight, it seems like a mistake to include the Black Diamonds here.  I think this history should cover the Pennsylvania Road Warriors (2002-04) and the Road Warriors (2006-07, 2011, 2018) with either separate pages for the Newburgh Black Diamonds (1998–99) and Lehigh Valley Black Diamonds (2000–2001) or one page covering both. -- Pemilligan (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  History
Talk:Breakfast with Scot

message: The description needs work, but I have to catch a plane and can't do it now.
Michael Downing is not the same Michael Downing that his hyperlink directs you to.  Should Michael Downing have his own page, or should the hyperlink be removed?  I tend to favor the latter-peterwigginout  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterwigginout (talk • contribs) 16:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Two notes:
# We don't require eight distinct citations for a single statement, nor should we be enclosing eight distinct citations in a single set of ref tags so that they get listed as one long reference.
# Ref links also should not be formatted in the style Salem, Rob. "Leaf Fans Get New Surprise After Tlusty Photo Affair." Toronto Star. November 16, 2007, by which the entire detail text of the reference appears as a single weblink. They need to be formatted either using the  template, or at minimum as Salem, Rob. "Leaf Fans Get New Surprise After Tlusty Photo Affair". Toronto Star, November 16, 2007., with only the actual title of the article itself being directly formatted as a web url.
- Bearcat (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation style template
Talk:Hilton Moscow Leningradskaya

message: Requesting corrections (prior to doing it myself)
1. It's not Gothic. Surprising enough, Komsomolskaya Square facade and tower ornaments were designed in Pseudo-Russian style mimicking Schusev's Kazansky_Rail_Terminal. OK, it's got a steeple but it's not enough to be Gothic.
2. Nothing is said about the legendary inefficiency of this hotel. Emporis.com says it's using only 19% of space (rentable-to-total). Khrushev (04/11/1955 "Redundancy" decree) says it has 356 rooms instead of 1000 that could be built for the money. Any reliable backing to any of these numbers?
3. It wasn't supposed to be 'the finest luxury hotel in Moscow'. Mordvinov's Ukraina ranked higher. That's why Mordvinov received Stalin prize first class, while Polyakov got second class (and was stripped of the prize in 1955). 
NVO 22:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Robert Nutting

message: So, this was written by a Pirates PR guy right? "Continues to lead them towards a championship caliber team.." etc?
What? Neutrality please  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.29.240 (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: To the anon, could you show me, please, where the source says what you wrote? The source is here. We have to be extra careful because it's a BLP that's been vandalized in the past. Many thanks, SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem.  The link is a list of ESPN's rankings of the owners.  If you scroll to the bottom, the Pirates are 4th from last, below all other MLB teams.
97.102.60.229 (talk) 04:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the explanation. I'm afraid it doesn't support the edit you made; before you could add that edit, you'd have to find a reliable source who interpreted the list the way you did. See WP:PSTS for an explanation (read the section about primary sources). We have to extra careful about this when dealing with living persons. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Can you show me where it says, or clearly implies, "In 2010, Nutting was rated Major League Baseball's worst owner by ESPN"? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

text: It doesn't say that either that I can see. I think you need to find a secondary source who reports on that rating, and who interprets it the way you do. We need that (a) to show that the rating is worth mentioning, and (b) that it says what you are saying. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Does the secondary source need to specifically say that they are rated worst in the league, or just provide proof that the ratings are credible and should be interpreted as a ranking of the quality of ownership?
97.102.60.229 (talk) 05:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find secondary sources that come close to saying what you're saying, then we can look at them and decide how best to word the edit. The point is that we can't make leaps of logic, unless the implication is so obvious that any educated person with no knowledge of the situation would look at the source and agree that's what it means. See WP:PRIMARY, which is policy (the ESPN website is a primary source for its own ratings): "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Anon edits
Talk:Lilies (film)

message: There was a statement that the prisoner characters in the film, who in turn portray other characters in their "play within the film", made no attempt at making their feminine characters realistically so. I can find no source to indicate that the writer, director or any of the actors intentionally acted in such a fashion as to portray that they were male prisoners playing female characters with disregard to gender. In point of fact, I would strongly argue against this statement, particularly the character of Liddy-Anne. CouplandForever (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Drag Performances
Talk:Corporal punishment

message: Have there been no noteworthy scientific studies on the actual effectiveness (or lack thereof) of physical punishment in behaviour modification? --95.92.225.94 (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: How does it compare to other approaches to behaviour modification?

message: Will the defense of others and the citizens' arrest made by a witness amount to corporal punishment? 208.59.132.152 (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No. -- Alarics (talk) 13:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defense of others and the citizens' arrest made by a witness = corporal punishment? 

message: Stephen"Zap" (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: this articles is either about corporal punishments toward children, in an old-school education purposes, and the physical punishment of criminals as ordinary practice in some cultures... a better clarification and distinction would be needed, as well as a more comprehensive history (which is currently -may of 2023- mainly euro- and US-centered) SuperHéraut (talk) 03:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about corporal punishment as a whole. It has links to several more detailed articles about specific aspects of corporal punishment. How do you suggest this be changed? -- Alarics (talk) 08:46, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  organisation
Talk:Krein–Milman theorem

message: I managed to get a scan of the original Krein–Milman paper from the net, and consequently changed the reference back to the correct title. Yes, that paper does indeed say “regular convex”, while the MR entry on Milman's 1947 paper says “regularly convex”. Just one of life's oddities.
I thought Milman's converse and Choquet's theorem belonged here, so I put them in. An accessible reference for the former would be nice.
Personally, I'd be tempted to skip the biographical factlets on David Milman, as he does in fact have his own wikipedia page. But since I am new to this, I'll not stick my neck that far out (yet).
Hanche 22:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the bio of Milman is out of place here. I removed it Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: In the section titled Related results, the first sentence begins as follows:
"Under the previous assumptions on K if T is a subset of K and the closed convex hull of T is all of K ...."
It is an extremely bad idea, in a Wikipedia math article, not to state the assumptions being used right at the place where they are being used.
In this case, various assumptions were made on K — but not even in the same or the previous section but two sections back.  Even if the intended assumptions were unambiguous, someone is likely to change that section in the future, leaving the later section unclear.
So: State assumptions where they are used.  (Unless of course there is a continuous block of text, clear to the reader, that uses the same assumptions.)108.245.209.39 (talk) 00:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad idea: State your assumptions in full 

message: In the book "Functional analysis and semi-groups" by Hille and Phillips it is stated (Section 2.6) that the local convexity assumption can be weakened to the following one: For each non-zero element of the space there exists a continuous linear functional (i.e. an element of the topological dual) that is non-zero on this element.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.74.56.210 (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weaker assumption on the space
Talk:Roger McKee

message: Three of the four sources in this article give McKee's first name as Roger, not Rogers. I propose to rename the article appropriately. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name?
Talk:Improved Order of Red Men

message: Article needs expansion. Badagnani (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! RevelationDirect (talk) 07:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Expand

message: Should we create a separate Order of Red Men page to cover the original organization and then adjust this Improved Order of Red Men page?MikeVdP (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Separate history?