lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Central Los Angeles

message: Please do not recreate this article. The term "Central Los Angeles" is not used, outside of the construction "South Central Los Angeles." You may be looking for Downtown Los Angeles or the area code 323. It's an oddity of Los Angeles geography that there is a West L.A., and East L.A., and a South L.A., but no North or Central L.A. jengod 20:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

message: Hi. I reverted the changes made by User:Precision123. My Edit summaries stated: "This lead is more reflective of the gist of the article" and "The changes made by Precision123 reflect the city as a whole and not just Central L.A. Also he or she did not leave any edit summaries." User:Phatblackmama reverted with a message on one of the changes stating "reformatting to match other LA pages; also formatting in columns." These recent changes seem to be totally unwarranted, and I'd like the preceding two editors to discuss them here (and to justify them) under WP:Bold, revert, discuss. These recent changes don't seem to be consistent with any WP:Guidelines that I'm aware of. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Please discuss what you think is wrong with these additions.  They do not "reflect the city as a whole" as you incorrectly stated -- only the area that the City of Los Angeles Planning Department refers to as the Central Area (which goes from downtown on the east to mid-Wilshire on the west). Phatblackmama (talk) 22:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with User:Phatblackmama. The previous lede gave too much weight to the L.A. Times definition (it used a number of square miles that only the Times definition uses.) My edit was to make it neutral. The City of Los Angeles has, in fact, a definition for Central Los Angeles (the closest thing to an official defintion), and it is not the same as the Times. My edit made it accurately reflect all the information/sources used in the article, not just one. Thank you. Precision123 (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes adding info under "Geography: The City of Los Angeles"
Talk:Project triangle

message: This article suggest that it is impossible to provide all 3, fast, cheap, and good. This ignores the fact that sometimes a new technology or an idea enables all 3. Even if better quality initially hits the market at a higher price, the prices eventually come down. There is no denying that digital technology such as DVD technology is faster with better quality than VHS. And yet DVDs are cheaper to produce and now priced cheaper on average than new VHS tapes were priced on average at their peak. Oicumayberight 08:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: False dichotomy

message: In this edit text is copy/pasted from the Project Management Triangle article. -- Mdd (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy-paste registration 

message: This is an old adage. I remember my dad using it in his 1980s sales pitches. I probably still have VHS tape of it. This idiom refers to competition and choosing your market. If you try to offer all three you will be unable to compete because your costs will be too high compared to your competitor. Jim Gauthier 10:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Price, Quality, Service. Pick any two.
Category talk:Biography articles needing priority parameter replacement

message: This category could be empty had the bot been used.  I'll take care of the articles manually Sunday afternoon.
:JimCubb (talk) 05:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: JimCubb (talk) 00:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why No Bot? 

message: This category is now empty.  Pages are certain to be added to it as they are created with the wrong parameter or exist with the wrong parameter and are edited.
I will monitor this category and take care of the pages that appear.
:JimCubb (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Done!  (For now) 

message: When this category reverts to its original purpose, that is after the work-group parameter errors have been eliminated, I will go back to repairing the pages that drop into it.  It is almost too bad that a separate category could not have been created for the new problem.
JimCubb (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The original report had 24 articles being in two working groups, not 90k+. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  No More Monitoring 

message: How is a concerned editor who belongs to only one or two work groups going to find the the pages that are in his work group(s) in this category?  JimCubb (talk) 23:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't. This isn't an issue that is restricted to individual work groups. Why do you perceive this as a problem? PC78 (talk) 23:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

text: If you were to split up the category it would still add up to the same amount, so I don't see what that would buy you. Clearly this is too big a job for one person, and no one is asking or expecting you to do any of it, so feel free to leave it alone. There is no urgency in clearing this category, and it's something that could most likely be handled by a bot anyway. PC78 (talk) 01:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navigation Problem Perceived 

message: Talk:Frank Mario popped into this category.  In the Biog banner yes and =low.  At the bottom of the page it indicates that the page is in :Category:Low-priority biography (sports and games) articles and there it is between Talk:Mario Ramón Hidalgo and Talk:Dutch Marion.  I changed the priority parameter to low.  The category designations did not change and the page did not move within the category.  So just what was accomplished by making the change other than a lot of computer time, a lot of bot time and a lot of trivial edits?  JimCubb (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Now pages can be in multiple work-groups with different priorities. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Was Accomplished By Making Priority Work-Group Specific?
Talk:Fitz John Porter

message: General John A. Logan... would accuse Porter of helping persuade his commander Robert Patterson to let Joseph E. Johnston's force escape out of the Shenandoah Valley and reinforce P. G. T. Beauregard, thus turning the tide at the First Battle of Bull Run.
:He cannot have meant this literally. Could we have a better explanation of what exactly Porter advised Patterson to do? Valetude (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarify, please 

message: :The article states that At Second Manassas/Bull Run, Porter received intelligence that Longstreet was indeed in fron of him, and thus his delay.  Historian James McPherson seems to question that timeline, stating Longstreet was only in front of Porter at noon.  This seems to be a key claim, and should be cited (was it part of the trial?).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.150.235.189 (talk) 02:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation? 
Talk:1985/86 United States network television schedule

message: I have never seen "George Burns Comedy Week" referred to as "The George Burns Comedy Week" anywhere but here and thus have changed it.  This is the title given by "TV.com" and "The Complete Directory To Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows", which are fairly authoritative sources for this sort of thing.  Rlquall 20:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: You forgot that T.J. Hooker was in CBS' lineup during that season. --2601:C8:C001:9AF0:ADA0:2850:4561:C121 (talk) 23:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  T.J. Hooker 

message: Inspector Gadget was not on Saturday nights on NBC. This is vandalism. 2600:1702:2C60:A60:6081:D5D0:7F17:3A2C (talk) 03:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism
Talk:Oldham Coliseum Theatre

message: Could someone please add co-ordinates using one the  series? Pit-yacker
:Done! ~~ Peteb16 22:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Location

message: I've previously removed copyrighted text from this article, it's recently been replaced so I've used official channels to highlight the problem. ~~ Peteb16 20:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And again.  A big chunk was added here at 00:05, 15 February 2011.  This is very close to the copyright page http://coliseum.org.uk/index.php/Oldham/about_us/history_of_the_coliseum which is dated 2011-02-14.  An editor claimed here at my talk page to have permission, see my reply, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence of that.  Mr Stephen (talk) 04:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And again, .  Mr Stephen (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyrighted text
Talk:Philippa, 5th Countess of Ulster

message: Since there is no extant portrait of Philippa of Clarence, I added her arms in the infobox.  The pic is from Wikimedia Commons. ScarletRibbons (talk) 05:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox Addition 

message: The article gives two (count 'em) death dates:
*Before 7 January 1378
*5 January 1382 (also quoted in this Talk)
I'm going with 1382 from Sims Genealogy at http://www.the-sims-family.net/genealogy/sims/index.htm?http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~thesimsfamily/sims/tree/17317.htm.
203.161.102.82 (talk) 04:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  When did she die?  How about matching some dates here?
Talk:Philippa Roet

message: The article states that it is "likely" that some of Philippa's children were not fathered by her husband. The evidence adduced is: (1) "Philippa and Chaucer both spent a great deal of time in the Gaunt household." (2) King Edward gave the Chaucers another annuity when their daughter Elizabeth was born. (3) Thomas Chaucer "received favors from" John of Gaunt under whom he served as a soldier. (4) Thomas Chaucer chose to carry his mother's coat of arms, not Geoffrey Chaucer's (his supposed father) - though the article concedes that his mother's coat of arms was more prestigious, and later in life Thomas did bear Geoffrey's coat of arms. So all of this hardly conclusive evidence of adultery. Perhaps there is such evidence, but it's not here. This article seems to be repeating 650-year-old gossip. In the absence of better evidence, I am going to change "this is likely" to "this is possible." Philippachaucer (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Children

message: Is it just me?
:"Following Costanza's death in 1394, John wed his mistress, Katherine, who was Philippa's sister. This connection significantly increased the Chaucers’ status in society. Philippa was much in favor in court as a lady-in-waiting and her husband continued to elevate his reputation."
But Philippa died c 1387. Maybe it means the rest of her surviving family's status increased after her sister's marriage, but it doesn't read that way. Or I suppose it could mean their status was enhanced by Katherine's position as John of Gaunt's mistress. At best, it's unclear. I know almost nothing about the Chaucer family. Can someone with more knowledge clean this up? History Lunatic (talk) 04:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion
Talk:Pakistan Workers' Federation

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Pakistan Transport & General Workers' Federation. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 9#Pakistan Transport & General Workers' Federation until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Shushugah (talk) 13:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pakistan Transport & General Workers' Federation" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:PGFTU – Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions

message: To the creator of this article - thank you so much for all your diligent work. This is a very important institution, historically. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 07:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't create the article, but I'm largely responsible for the current wording (apart from the changes you've made in the last few days).  Thanks.  CJCurrie (talk) 04:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank you
Talk:Bir Protik

message: I have a list of the names of Bir Protik.Actually it is in the famous novel'Josna O Jononir Golpo' of Humayun Ahmed.Should I include it here or should i create a new article like 'list of bir protiks'?
Tarif Ezaz  Bangladesh 20:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A separate article is better as the list is too big to include in this article. --Ragib 20:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I haven't noticed this talk page earlier, so i did include some of them. Miltonzs 12:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Since there is another page titled Recipients of Bangladeshi military awards in 1971, this article can be made a list-article. A separate article will make this article weak. User:Sabih omar 04:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the other article you refer to is a bit of overkill. That is, we already list the military award recipients in individual article, so there is no need for that all-encompassing article. --Ragib (talk) 04:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article does not cite any sources and therefore is not verifiable. I have tagged it as such. Hope somebody can add refs against all the names. → AA (talk • contribs) — 16:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: I plan to complete the list of Bir Protik day by day. I have the materials. --Anwarul Islam (talk) 08:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Recipients

message: This article is currently listed as a stub by the military history project, but I feel that with a bit of effort it could be brought up to B class standard. I have the following suggestions:
* expand the lead section to summarise the article (it is currently only one short sentence, but could be expanded to discuss how the award came about, how many recipients, who is eligible, etc.
* add an expanded history section;
* add in line citations for every paragraph/block of information — internet links to the Bangladesh Gazette for the citations would be great, if it is available online;
* add an image of the award to the infobox;
Just a few ideas. These also apply to the other Bangladesh military awards. Once you feel that the article is ready for re-assessment, please add it to the list at WP:MHA. Hope this helps. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions for improvement
Talk:Yi Kang

message: While I think Yi Seok is doing a lot to improve awareness and preserve history of the royal family, something that is sorely needed, he and his supporters sometimes overreach in attempting to demonstrate that he should head of household. 
Euihwa was never the crown prince, and the article should not be headed to give that impression. --Dan 20:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This leads us to the question of what the title should be... I see where Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) now specifically disclaims any authority over Eastern nobility; on the other hand, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean) doesn't have anything to say about Korean Empire titles ... Suggestions are welcome, but for now I'll try Prince Imperial Ui, per the first line of the article.  -- Visviva 08:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Visviva - that makes sense to me, since it was his highest actual title. --Dan 16:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: This article is refreshingly well-written, when compared to many similar articles about people from this time period. toobigtokale (talk) 02:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  good job
Talk:John F. Reynolds

message: Although I am listed as maintaining this article, it contains a large number of opinions and speculations, none of which are cited. Some of these come from my early days as a Wikipedia editor, others from other editors. I have this article on my to-do list to correct the situation, but others are welcome to add citations in the meantime. Hal Jespersen 16:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am finished with the article expansion and footnoting exercise. I deleted a number of assertions regarding his death, particularly claims of named Confederate individuals, because none of my sources have citations for such claims. I have also removed the speculations about which theories were correct, which turn out to be completely POV. Hal Jespersen 20:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:John Reynolds death 2.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 1, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-07-01. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng  {chat} 23:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:John Reynolds death 2.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: I am not entirely sure how to format this, but if anyone is interested, I wanted to note that the Memorials section does not include the School District of Lancaster's Reynolds Middle School, named for John F. Reynolds. The school was built in the 1920s and designed by noted Lancaster architect, C. Emlen Urban.  Please see Lancaster Newspapers "Meet the people behind our county school names" October 15, 2007 (https://lancasteronline.com/news/meet-the-people-behind-our-county-school-names/article_b0a0a244-af6c-5175-a222-56a3bba0fad0.html) and "Historical Commission OKs Reynolds Middle School additions, garage; neighbors still object" 10/18/17 (https://lancasteronline.com/news/local/historical-commission-oks-reynolds-middle-school-additions-garage-neighbors-still/article_4d718810-b384-11e7-bd0f-bb9bd716f83b.html).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanus mercator (talk • contribs) 13:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monuments and Memorials
Talk:Associação dos Bolseiros de Investigação Científica

message: Please see Talk:National postgraduate representative body for discussion on what version of names should be used. Timrollpickering 15:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Names of this and similar organisations

message: Apparently this page actually replaces the English version of the the ABIC page, although it claims that "...young Portuguese read and write English fluently.", and that there are many foreigners holding grants in Portugal, the ABIC cannot create an English version of their page. So, I fixed the grammar. The language is still a bit strange, though.
Jpeaton (talk) 14:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language 
Talk:All Pakistan Trade Union Federation

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Railway Worker's Union (Open Line) Pakistan. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 9#Railway Worker's Union (Open Line) Pakistan until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Shushugah (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Railway Worker's Union (Open Line) Pakistan" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:National Postgraduate Committee

message: Please see Talk:National postgraduate representative body for discussion on what version of names should be used for the NPC's counterparts in non-English speaking countries. Timrollpickering 20:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Names of counterparts in non-English speaking countries
Talk:Convergencia Sindical

message: As I researched the member count statistics for this and other labor organizations in Panama, I kept finding different lists of existing organizations and their sizes in different sources.  I don't know what to make of this.  One possibility is that the sources are of dubious value.  Another is that the sources are accurate, but the labor situation in Panama is just very fluid.  -- RoySmith (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seems to be a moving target
Talk:Federation of Free Workers

message: Good day to all, especially the article's original author.
This article has been tagged with multiple issues which should be dealt with as soon as possible, otherwise, this article might be nominated for neutrality check in the future.
Wikipedia has a Manual of Style which could be followed by everyone interested in editing this article.
Pcbyed (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Address the Issues stated in the tags
Talk:Meat Katie

message: Talk of having "gained popularity" and having "released a large volume of material" is clear puffery, as defined in the manual of style. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Puffery
This relates to, but exceeds the notability concerns that have been previously expressed and could potentially result from autobiographical editing and self promotion, neither of which are allowed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.225.235.20 (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Written like an advertisement
Talk:Great Northern Railway (Ireland)

message: I suggest moving the Meath On Track link to the DART page, where it seems more relevant.  According to the linked site itself, the Dublin-Navan line was part of the Dublin & Meath Railway, and subsequently Great Western.  The GNRI was only involved in the Drogheda-Navan link, which is peripheral to the Meath On Trach campaign.  Since the campaign is more of a current political effort than a historical archive, the link probably has little place here.  Thoughts?    JXM 20:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Meath Off Track?

message: I removed this image as it had no context whatsoever. 
--Tony Mach (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed image 

message: This article needs a map  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.68.244 (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: There is at least one absorbed company, the Newry, Warrenpoint and Rostrevor Railway that should be mentioned, albeit it relatively small size.  There may be up to two or three others.  It will be a questions of getting this right from e.g. (Patterson, 2003) and integrating into the current article.  My intention is to do that at some point in the future. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged companies including NW&RR
Talk:Solidarity Electoral Action

message: The IRI link is dead (404) as of april 2010.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.38.31.77 (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Who translated the title into English? "Akcja" is rarely 'action' - usually 'initiative' or 'drive' is better. Malick78 (talk) 10:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name?
Talk:Polish Round Table Agreement

message: When were the Polish granted freedom of travel, and issued en-masse passports? End of 1988?--Mazarin07 (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Are you sure April 4 is the date of the signing of the "Round Table Agreement"? Because I've read it was on April 5 or 6. -- FlareTigress (talk) 01:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of The Round Table Agreement 

message: It seems that the article is strongly prejudiced against the talks; the section about the criticism of the agreement is the longest (longer even than in the Polish version of the article), there is no response to these assessments, and there are some parts which imply an opinion about the talks; such as 'secret' meeting between Wałęsa and Kiszczak. I found in some sources that this meeting has occurred indeed, but nobody mentions it was secret (so it's not clear for me, and the source is missing supporting this information).
Overall the structure should be a bit changed, or all the sections apart from the criticism section developed to provide more balance. Alexatminerva (talk) 02:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article seems biased against the talks