lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Battle of Tinchebray

message: Hi! May I have an question? In Jim Bradbury's "The Medieval Archer" (The Boydel Press, Woodbridge 1999 (reprint from 1985)) is the date of battle shifted to 29 September. Is it an error or are there two possible dates and we don't know whitch one is correct? Thanks... --Sceadugenga 07:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A majority of the primary sources give the 28th as the date, but a few give the 27th or the 29th. Loren Rosen (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Which date is correct? 28. or 29.?
Talk:Julian of Eclanum

message: Isn't describing Augustine's views as "coercive" an ||NPOV|| violation? Delmlsfan 03:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coercive? 

message: The wording of this section is extremely slanted towards Julian and almost abusive of Augustine, whose positions are not well expressed. If no one else does, I will make the necessary changes later. Snowboardpunk (talk) 00:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV on "Julian's Theology" 

message: There is a move request at Talk:Julian_the_Apostate#Requested_move_2 to move Julian the Apostate to Julian. Since this involves the question whether that Emperor is the primary (much more used than any other) meaning of Julian, the views of watchers of this page would be welcome. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Move notification

message: I don't care much for getting into debate but calling Julian's views a purifying movement in the face of the bullying Augustine seems to me that this is more specific editors personal opinions (not uncommon on the pages of the arch-pelagians) rather than actual scholarship. Would be better if we had some reputable sources that back up the claims made rather than anti-Augustine diatribes? Thoshammer3 (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clear Pro Julian biases
Talk:Huw Higginson

message: If anyone ever reads this with time to spare- create a filmography.--EchetusXe (talk) 01:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filmography 
Talk:Phosphoinositide 3-kinase

message: Would it not be simpler to use the abbreviation PI3K?
It is now used in most publications, it is unambigous and easier to type. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klausokken (talk • contribs) 11:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article is growing from a little stub into a fully grown piece, but needs a little bit of formatting and tidying up to help it along.....so I added in the clean-up tag Ciar 06:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean-up

message: Which is correct, I'd go for the former as that's its substrate but no one's picked up on this yet so...--JamMan 14:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase or Phosphoinositide 3-kinase

message: Figure is mislabelled, structure is of PI3k gamma not alpha — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.150.13.138 (talk) 23:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: my bad.  thanks for catching it.  Roadnottaken 04:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Figure is mislabelled

message: PTEN is not a oncogene  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.43.71 (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: PTEN

message: Hi folks, I removed a section from the intro that was drawn from the paper "Effects of cannabinoids and cannabinoid-enriched Cannabis extracts on TRP channels and endocannabinoid metabolic enzymes", about the inhibitory effects of certain compounds on PI3Ks. I guess that someone inserted this when they were stoned as a joke. To right the balance, I am removing it while I am stoned. This definitely doesn't belong in the intro, and it seems confusing and distracting to the article in general. Graft | talk 17:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rm'd stuff from the intro 

message: FDA pretty clear in Copanlisib-label, referring to Phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wowbagger2 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Copanlisib-label
Talk:Secret passage

message: I think that this article should also mention the numerous tunnels between East and West Berlin that some people built just to escape from East Germany. -- 62.156.55.33 (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Berlin? 

message: there is passages that goes between certain areas there. stortinget station have several secret doors. i know someone that used to work there so my source is reliable.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 08:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  perhaps it should mention the oslo metro 

message: Was murder used to protect the secret locations of burial chambers in Egyptian pyramids? This article says nothing. David Spector (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Murder to protect secret passages?
Talk:Philosophy and economics

message: See talk at Philosophy of Social Science, to which this article originally redirected. I'm not an expert in this field, but a wide and urgent consensus emerged that the stuff written under Philosophy of Social Science was pure rubbish and had to be got rid of. Hopefully an expert will come along and flesh this out. Caravaca 11:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recreation of this article in January 2006

message: The current title "Philosophy of economics" has about 4,000 Google scholar hits compared with "Philosophy and economics" 4,500 hits and 
"Economics and philosophy" 10,000 hits.
"Philosophy of economics" is a great title for a philosopher  writing or teaching on the subject but less good for economists for the reason that they may claim no great expertise in philosophy even if writing on the subject.  "Philosophy and economics" is a more neutral way of expressing the subject that should be acceptable to both groups and is somewhat more used.  "Econ & philosophy" has the advantage of greater usage. But, from the clear writing style of the article, it is obvious that philosophers are mostly responsible for the text of the article.  So, Phil. should be named first.  If there is no consensus otherwise, I'd propose enacting the change in a month.  Comments welcome. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Change of article title per above completed.  Thank you for your tolerance.  --Thomasmeeks (talk) 18:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for change of article title to 'Philosophy and economics' in a month 

message: It is written so simplistically, it is almost like a teacher reading to a group of young students.  For example, under the Epistemology section the author first gives us the definition of epistemology.  I think this is all unnecessary.  The article should be more concise.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.227.170.120 (talk) 00:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Who wrote this?=
Talk:Jesmond

message: I've added a comment about studentification to the article. I don't know anything about the area, but since it's mentioned in the studentification article it seems besst to list it here. If those in the know say that the area doesn't have many students, then it would be good if you could remove the reference from the studentification page as well as here. Thanks, Jamse 11:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Studentification]]

message: Is there any evidence that Jesmond means "hill of Jesus"?  It seems much more likely that it's just a corruption of the original "Gese Muth" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.41.44.244 (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "hill of Jesus" 

message: I have removed Heaton Manor School from this page, as the school is in Heaton, and not Jesmond. It does border Jesmond Park West and Newton Road, but as can be seen here http://gis.newcastle.gov.uk/mapsonline/map.asp?wid=1280&browsertype=ns, the school is clearly in the North Heaton Ward. BNC85 (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heaton Manor School 

message: The above title in the reference section returns a 404 sorry cannot edit this to mark it a dead link VoltairSHK (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing this out, I have marked it as dead. Keith D (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Halting the Proliferation of Student Housing 
Talk:Troy Broadbridge

message: WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 04:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 

message: I think Trisha Broadbridge has become noteworthy for her own article following her Young Australian of the Year victory.  Rogerthat Talk 11:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion
Talk:Preterition

message: Could Preterition be similar to Predestination? Or, perhaps, have the same meaning?
Predestination is a Calvinist doctrine (also see St. Augustine of Hippo) which means: God can see/know everything, both past and future, so God knows who will go to Heaven or Hell. If God has all powers, then God would be presentient. Humans, on the other hand, would not know who was going either to Heaven or Hell but could get some idea by observing the kind of life that a person lived.
The concept has sometimes been explained with this metaphor: If an observer were standing at the top of a tall building and could see two cars speeding into an intersection in such a way that it was clear that neither driver could stop nor avoid the other, then the observer would know, in advance, that a collision was going to happen. The observer's knowledge of the future collision would not have caused the actions of either of the drivers, so the observer's knowledge of the future would not affect the "free will" of the drivers.
Predestination was a doctrine that attempted, in part, to avoid negating the concept that humans have free will while, at the same time, preserving the attribute of God as presentient.
--Antigone2 06:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Category talk:Nexstar Media Group

message: Someone has copied a list of stations in artificially at the top of this category rather than just allowing normal Category links. The list also makes no distinction between stations that Nexstar owns and that Nexstar only manages. This artificial list needs to be moved or deleted.  --Closeapple 12:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artificial station list with wrong info
Talk:Rotten Apples

message: I think Judas O doesn't warrant its own article and should be merged. Lachlanusername (talk) 05:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judas O merge
Talk:Tidewater Council

message: *Keep separate Tidewater Council separate.  There is a main article link to it in Scouting in Virginia already because of the length of the article.  If every council had an article this size, Scouting in Virginia would be humongous.  Council articles with only a para or two should be in the state articles, but not ones that are big enough to stand on their own, those (Tidewater Council should be subpages. Rlevse 09:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: The merge request has been removed in that it was erroneously placed in the first place.  Sorry for the confusion.  KC9CQJ 00:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge removed 

message: Blue Heron Lodge has not shown separate notability.  Per WP:SCOUTMOS and the supporting WP guidelines, the lodge article should first be expanded within the council article.
*support --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk -  12:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blue Heron Lodge merge 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Portsmouth Council (Virginia). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 17#Portsmouth Council (Virginia) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Portsmouth Council (Virginia)" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:What we've got here is failure to communicate

message: I thought this was "What we have here" not "what we've got here". Kappa 12:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So did I, initially. But I listened to the line as sampled on 'civil war', and it's definitely "what we've got here". Personaly I think "we have" sounds better. Satchfan 10:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: (Ah, i'm such a saintly contributor! I just tossed out a hundred words, in a really incisively ironic draft response to that talk contib about an opinion re taste.)    Please don't confuse our colleagues about what WP exists for, and why contributors' generous work is worth our doing it.--Jerzy•t 06:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Have/Got) 

message: The body of this article is... not good. The language is alienating and its an interpretation of the film.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.11.243 (talk) 02:19, 7 November 2006
: I don't think anyone can say with a straight face that the language is "alienating." That doesn't make any sense at all. One can hardly say the language here is overly high brow. Now, as for interpretation... yes. It's a very good interpretation but an interpretation nonetheless. Gingermint (talk) 03:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree with Gingermint. "Alienating" is about the last descriptor that comes to mind. And there's a bit of interpretation that technically should require a source, but I'm not challenging it and I doubt that any serious editor would. Cresix (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Body 

message: I vaguely recall this line used in 'The Mask' where a car driver abuses 'the mask' and he responds by blowing all the car windows out with a squeeze-bulb horn. --Jaded-view (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  the mask 

message: Here is a webpage that has a more comprehensive list of the popular uses of the phrase: http:// www.nationmaster.com / encyclopedia / What-we've-got-here-is-(a)-failure-to-communicate  KathleenAP73 (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Unfortunately, this is not a reliable source. Materialscientist (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  More popular uses 

message: English is not my first language, but isn't it wrong to say that Luke "abridges" the Captain's utterance, since he actually does not shorten it? Wouldn't "paraphrases" be more accurate? /Bcarlssonswe (talk) 08:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abridgement 

message: Lynden B. Johnson used the phrase in a speech in 1964. He was referring to the divide between youth culture and authorities that was developing. That was the origin of the phrase as a political trope in the sense used in Cool Hand Luke. The authorities weren't being obeyed by youth, and youth wasn't being listened to by the authorities. The trope was derogatory because there was no failure to communicate. The authorities (Johnson), and the character in the movie, wanted obedience not communication.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.87.100 (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Use and Origin Of Political Trope
Talk:Peter Rochegune Munch

message: If I remember correctly, he represented Langeland in Parliament. --Valentinian 12:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Danish Wiki agrees, so I'm adding it. Valentinian (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Edwin Newman

message: Please check source for statement Newman anchored radio coverage.  Primary radio anchor that afternoon was Morgan Beatty. Newman may have had some other role.  Michaelcarraher (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Kennedy Assassination
Talk:List of music videos for Mariah Carey singles

message: The 'Greatest Hits' section is a bit strange, surely 'Endless Love' should be under 'Other' and 'Never Too Far/Hero' either 'Glitter' (same era) or 'Other' (it doesn't actually feature on Greatest Hits, except for the Japanese version).
:I think the overall format of the article should be changed into a chronological table instead of based on albums.  It's very awkward to have the remixes of some songs in the album section when they never appeared on that album (eg. My All/Stay Awhile was never on Butterfly, I Still Believe/Pure Imagination was never on #1's, etc.) and as you said, Endless Love shouldn't be thrown in with the Greatest Hits section and Never Too Far/Hero technically fits better under the Glitter section.  Personally, I say it should be based on release date instead of by albums!  
And this article definitely should be keeped!  Having a list of the videos, dates, directors, sources, etc. are very useful as some of this information isn't even found in the single pages! 65.110.24.179 05:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes 

message: I redirected this article to Mariah Carey singles discography some time ago; as indicated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Videography of Mariah Carey, a separate list of every music video for every Carey single is rather redundant and a violation of WP:NOT, especially as the articles on the singles have information on the music videos (this is also why a list of her remixes was deleted not once but twice; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Remixography of Mariah Carey and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mariah Carey remixes). This article has now been cut-'n'-pasted to Mariah Carey Music Videos Videography (thus splitting the edit history between articles, which is a violation of Wikipedia's copyrights policy) without discussion, and I'd appreciate if user:L&D could explain why (s)he did this. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 18:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirecting to [[Mariah Carey Music Videos Videography]]
Talk:Maher Shalal Hash Baz (band)

message: This is not a Geographic release, it's on "Chapter Records". It's only been sold via dominorecordco.com. --Leo44 (talk) 13:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Live Aoiheya January 2003 
Talk:Christmas by medium

message: Cliff Richard, a gospel singer ?  
84.130.92.37 13:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cliff Richard 

message: Who moved the list of Christmas films and TV specials?
User:DanDud88 10:45, 30 November 2006 GMT.
:It looks like most of it was deleted, rather than moved.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christmas_television&oldid=174403484 . I can't find anything later than that.  This looks like a good list to me.  Perhaps the opening section should be shortened and the article should be changed to List of Christmas television specials.  A link to it could be put in here.--Hjal 21:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you find the movies link the same way?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanDud88 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here you go. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christmas_film&oldid=174221608 This also looks like a good stand-alone list to me.  The Introduction section should be dropped and whoever wants to put the list back should prepare an lead or definition from a film perspective, I think, rather than a Christmas celebration perspective.  However, I would leave the made-for-TV movies with this list, rather than with merging them with a list of television specials.  You might want to look at some of the other lists of films and film categories. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_films --Hjal 23:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lists of Christmas films and television specials

message: Somebody added the following comment to the article, which somebody else recently deleted:
(Could someone comment on the situation where most radio stations stop playing Christmas music when Christmas day is past? There was a 1-day extension of playing Christmas music in 2004, when Christmas day was a Saturday. It is still Christmas time the day after Christmas day, with Epiphany being 12 days after Christmas day.)
I pasted it here for discussion, if anybody is interested.  I added a couple of section heads above, too.  
*My thoughts regarding the question are that the pre-Christmas hoopla has been so extended, starting before Halloween now, that people who are not thinking about the liturgical calendar are glad that it's over.--Hjal (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radio 

message: Someone moved Christmas in the media to Christmas by medium. I preferred the old title, and would like to recommend moving it back. -- Radagast3 (talk) 04:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article move 

message: I PRODed this article about three months ago because it has been almost entirely unsourced for 8 years, and tagged as unsourced for 5 years. The PROD was removed almost immediately, with the only changes being a few unsourced additions, two unreliable sources (see WP:IMDB), and one sourced addition. I think three months after the PROD was removed is sufficient time to nominate for deletion, but I'll wait another week or so to see if I get any response to this message. Cresix (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs to be improved or deleted
Talk:NORDO

message: I see that you've reverted my edit re NORDO being a US term.  Fair enough, you're from Canada, if you use it there it's by definition not a US-only term.  However is "NORDO" used outside North America then?  It certainly isn't used here in the UK (RDOF is the UK equivalent, although it's not very widely used) and I haven't heard of it used in other European countries.
BaseTurnComplete 13:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about other countries/continents like africa? -User:Lommer | talk 18:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

message: The two references given both link to pages that cannot be found. --<SPAN STYLE="font-family:monospace; color:#008800; background-color:#ffffcc; border:1px solid #ff4444;"> B.D.Mills </SPAN> (T, C) 06:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken references
Talk:Canadian Corps

message: Shouldn't it be the Union Flag or the Red Ensign - the flags of Canada during the Great War? TrulyTory 13:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How's this - it is a WWI recruiting poster showing the Red Ensign. The flag shown at the top of the page is common to most of the Canadian Military articles in Wikipedia.Verne Equinox 00:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag Used in Article 

message: The article states that "two-thirds of whom were British-born".  This does seem unlikely, but I suppose it is possible that many could have emigrated to Canada and then have joined the Canadian army.  Are there any references that would support or refute this statistic?  
--PatrickRossiter (talk) 05:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not unlikely, there was British emigration to Canada and who would be more likely to volunteer to fight for Britain in Europe than the British-born? Two thirds of the "initial contingent" is expressed here [at the Canadian War Museum and then it states futher on that by the end of the war half of those that served had been British-born.GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I just saw the reference used with my own eyes, and it does in fact say it is true. I thought it also good to quote the final percentage of those of Canadian birth as well as the page number it appears on. Nice find to corroborate the statistics! Monsieurdl mon talk-mon contribs 03:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Born? 

message: This wasn't a battle the Canadian Corps fought in, the Newfoundland rgt only, part of British formations, so I removed the battle from the list.Usedtoknowthat (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cambrai 1917