lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Wikipedia talk:Wikiethics/Archive/Approval Poll 31 April 2006

message: # Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 00:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose 

message: * Based on the numerous comments on the talk page I am actively assuming that this is a proposed guideline and not a proposed policy. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 00:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, it is as stable as it is ever going to be and it has built up more than enough to be mature enough for people to determine whether or not it should be approved or not.  It's not like the version is locked in as soon as the poll starts either, during and/or after (assuming it gets a consensus to have it be a guideline) people can still add on and edit it. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 01:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: * Over the course of 3 days your obsessive POV editing (consensus opinion) completely turned around my hope of anyone else ever getting their opinion heard on this article. I made many comments on polls and my last one was "I am looking forward to this poll". For you to dig up quotes of mine that supported your POV you had to skim over my most recent comments and go back to earlier ones. I cannot begin fathom how blinded you must be to do this. And then you have the nerve to call me a liar for it? What are you trying to achieve? Are you trying to show how much of an unethical person you really are? ॐ Metta Bubble puff 06:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I just would like to teach you the meaning of twisting on a clear example. It would be good if you can see whether you are an appropriate person to discuss ethical issues at all. Resid Gulerdem 06:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Okay, I see you're struggling with the language. Let's just leave this here. Peace. Let the vote work it out. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 06:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Actually I am having hard time when I see dishonesty and insincerity. That is the only problem; language is OK. Resid Gulerdem 06:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This APPROVAL POLL IS the first poll. Look at the dates! Your attempts at undermining this poll are failing miserably. The results of this approval poll will determine the fate of this project. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 05:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * The problem is if we should vote for it. It is not ready for the vote yet. It needs to be improved first. Everybody is accepting that. Resid Gulerdem 05:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm not. I want to see it lying on the floor dead. Hawkestone 05:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments
Wikipedia talk:Wikiethics/Archive/Do we need a poll at this stage Poll 31 April 2006

message: The approval poll is started without consensus, and by a single individual. This poll is for asking the community if we really need the approval poll at this stage? Including main proposer of this policy, there is a concensus on not having a poll at this stage. Simply because the contributing editors even do not think that it looks like a policy at this stage. In that sense if the result of this poll is NO, it invalidates the approval poll's result. If it is YES, together with the approval poll, it will serve as a guide to improve the policy. This poll is vandalized for days and it was not active. Please note that even some users in the approval pool below says that: 'It is early to put this policy to a vote'. If this policy was not vandalized, they would vote here on this poll. Resid Gulerdem 05:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this poll for? 

message: # The policy needs more work before voted. The approval poll is designed to kill the process. The editors proposing it do not believe that it is ready and in the final form. The proposal is not even completely written yet. It is not fair to vote a half-written proposal down. Resid Gulerdem 20:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NO

message: If you chose to say NO, please give us some hints why you think the policy is not ready for vote. Let us know also about which section(s) you think need improvement together with your suggestions in this section.
* It is not ready for vote simple because it is not stable yet. It reflects 3-4 editors opinion. I announced this proposal in many places. Feedbacks from the community will improve it. Can anybody see a reason for such a rush?!... As a person who initiated and continuously contributing to this proposal, I feel that we need much more input from the community. Resid Gulerdem 07:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: If you say NO

message: # Yes. The poll below is valid. It was started first and is underway. Vote struck due to excessive re-editing of poll rules, title and introduction ॐ Metta Bubble puff 05:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, virtually all those people who voted "NO" on this poll did not vote in the other poll (which makes sense, since they don't think it's valid).  However, virtually everyone who did vote in the other poll either did not vote in this poll (the vast majority of them), or also voted "YES" here.  But regardless of whether or not they voted in this poll, I believe the other poll should be allowed to continue, for the reasons I stated above.  --  noosphere 03:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: YES
Talk:Complement system/to do

message: * Create complement system graphic (possibly like this, or this, or even this) showing the interrelationships and differences between the three pathway types.
The reference to Jackie Stanley and her/his work is needed. I could find no mention of the worker or the work in the literature on the history of the complement system. Certainly C3b had not been described in the 1930. 
Too much of the referencing in the whole entry is to textbooks rather than to the scientific literature. Fingermoving (talk) 17:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Talk:West Point Grey

message: See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vancouver#Point Grey.Skookum1 (talk) 09:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created Point Grey as a separate article now; more can be added there; I'm unsure of the name of the WWII base but think it was "CFB Point Grey", for now no CFB Point Grey redirect has been made, however.Skookum1 (talk) 07:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Point Grey]] redirect needs separation
Talk:Pete's Brewing Company

message: The use of corn and rice as adjuncts in pale lagers by large US breweries such as Anheuser-Busch, Miller, and Coors has its historical precedent not in cost cutting but rather the excessive protein of 6-row barley malt being used for brewing in the US in the 19th century, rice and corn were used to lighten the body, drawing on brewing traditions from Northern Germany.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velkyal (talk • contribs) 14:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation Needed for Adjunct Claim

message: I’m from the uk. Pete’s wicked ale needs to be revived. 92.234.149.178 (talk) 00:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pete’s wicked ale
Talk:Yangqin

message: Thanks for the photo!  But if you don't include the chair in the photo, maybe it could show more detail of the instrument, more close-up.  Badagnani 05:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo

message: I am a yangqin player myself too, and I've always heard it called as "strikers" or "hammers" - never as beaters. If no one objects, I will change it to reflect that. (My teacher is Zhao Yangqin of Melody of China) –-  kungming·2 (Talk) 05:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's good to have another Chinese music specialist here.  There aren't many of us.  "Sticks" or "mallets" are possible too.  But "strikers" doesn't seem a normal phrasing in this context.  "Beaters" is common in a Google search and that's always what we called those sticks, but everyone's experience is different.  Badagnani 05:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, then. =) –-  kungming·2 (Talk) 18:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I concede the point about the Google search. If one were to check the English names given to the mallets of the instruments in the cimbalom group, you notice a great variety of words. These include "sticks", "strikers", "hammers", "beaters" and "mallets", as have been suggested by kungming and badagnani. The thing is, there might not be an officially correct one since after all these are translations. You might know that the Mandarin word for the yangqin mallet is "zhu2" which directly translates to bamboo. If there were any more appropriate naming, we use call the mallets "bamboos". Of course that doesn't sound all that right. I think unless one of the community were to check up the official naming given by some central chinese music committe in China, it would be difficult to argue which were to a more appropriate name.DesolateReality 22:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: "Mallets" is the term used in the West for the sticks used by xylophone-type instruments but "beaters" would work as well. Interesting that the Chinese word is "bamboo." That should probably be noted in the article. Badagnani 22:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: That's the term I've usually used. Badagnani 05:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beaters? 

message: I propose we call the mallets beaters. If there is no objection, then let us change all references to the mallets to the word "beaters". If you object, please vote for what name you would like and give a short reason.--DesolateReality 05:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the term I've usually used. Badagnani 05:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote for Name of Mallets 

message: I contend the meaning of the character "yang2" as being taken to mean acclaimed. It could very simply mean "carried" (as in the mallets being held up by the hands) or "in motion" (as in that the sticks are being in constant motion to produce music).DesolateReality 22:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Character Yang as Meaning Acclaimed
Talk:TV1 (Malaysian TV network)

message: In the History section, I put a Unreferenced section template, better than putting several Citation Needed templates. Elandy2009 (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreferenced section instead of various citation needed 
Talk:Identification in Burkean rhetoric

message: I added a link to this article from Kenneth Burke's main page, so it is no longer an orphan. Yes, it apparently came from a graduate student's final project 10 years ago, but it's a decently comprehensive look at the term. Perhaps I'll come back another day and add more information and secondary sources. 73.22.106.218 (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Orphaned article

message: The original proposal for deletion said that this sounded like original research, cut and paste from term paper.  The latter might be true, but this isn't original research.  "Identification" is one of the many terms that K. Burke created and one that is fairly important in today's understanding of rhetoric.  The article could be improved somewhat, most particularly by citing references, but it certainly shouldn't be PROD-ded.  I'm usually on the brutal side of removing articles, but even if this one came up AFD, I'd vote to Keep.--KJPurscell 05:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk about proposed delete

message: Yes, this article was written by one of my graduate students as part of the requirements for a rhetorical history course. There is no term paper for the course. I'll see what can be done regarding secondary sources, but Burke's work isn't nearly as unintelligible as so much contemporary rhetorical theory. --Matt 05:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of Document
Talk:Remy Zero

message: I miss this band.  --ChrisLaurel 05:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Talk:I Want to Be Like You

message: This page should not be speedily deleted because it does not appear to meet criteria G1 as gibberish or nonsense.  It may be a hoax (I am currently researching) or otherwise deletion-worthy, but not under G1 unless I'm not seeing something. --49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested deletion
Wikipedia talk:WikiGremlin

message: Dumb, dumb, dumb point, but I risk asking the question, because I just reverted a change by User:Fedallah where we seem to differ on what a gremlin is.  And the description in the article doesn't help, when it includes:
:..., most are good, and generate entries like ...
Anyway, I thought User:Fedallah was making a joke when he changed Wikipedia:WikiFairy 
:WikiFairies are considered essentially friendly creatures, like WikiGnomes and unlike WikiGremlins or WikiTrolls.
to
:WikiFairies are considered essentially friendly creatures, like WikiGnomes or WikiGremlins and unlike WikiTrolls.
But he also changed Wikipedia:Glossary#W to
:WikiFairies are considered to be basically friendly, like WikiGnomes and WikiGremlins. 
so I think it is real confusion, on one or the other's part.
Thoughts please? (Well, nice ones anyway) Shenme 20:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ... most are good, ... ? 

message: This page was the subject of an MfD discussion closed on 17 August 2006.  The result was Keep, because the gremlins threatened to kill us if we removed their one bit of fame! Xoloz 16:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: MfD Result Notice

message: I just want to point out that the very beautiful picture used on this page is related to (made by?) John Bauer and it's troll, not a gremlin. --138.106.14.202 10:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have replaced it with a photo of a Gremlin.  (Consistently with the alleged humor tag currently on the page.)  But seriously, does anyone have any objections to deleting this?  I just want to see if there is any chance of an MfD succeeding, since there has been a mixed record on these fauna articles in the past.  6SJ7 (talk) 17:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I apparently followed you here from WikiFairy. As it been almost 2 years, we could try MfD again. If the humour was stale then, it is even more so now. Mind you, the car is the funniest thing on the page. :) Random89 (talk) 08:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: They're not a real part of the WikiFauna, since there is no categorization on what they do and how in wikipedia. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 18:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, I find the concept rather confusing myself... The description implies that they are not a type of user, but rather something like the spirit of Wikipedia, which just makes things work. Elaboration is needed. Waltham, The Duke of 01:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: the saftware, mabye?99.145.121.213 (talk) 01:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Not real
Talk:IBM Rochester

message: There was an inordinate amount of commentary in parenthesis, which I attempted to reword in a decent manner.  Please correct if you don't think it to be appropriate, but parenthetical remarks are hard to read.  I have to fight the urge to keep down such remarks, myself, tending to insert excess factoids into otherwise useful information....
Also, HDD-related development is still being done at the IBM Rochester site by former the IBM STD resources divested to Hitachi GST.  HGSTers from IBM don't like to forget their heritage.  GMW 05:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parenthetical Remarks 

message: This article needs quite a bit of work to bring it up to date. A decade ago, this facility still had over five thousand employees. Now it shrunk by half as manufacturing is outsourced. Jonathunder (talk) 01:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update needed 

message: who nicknamed it the "big blue zoo".
what source is there for this moniker?
even if a few folks can be found, what constitutes a formal nickname?
perhaps this is pure hogwash...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:100:6156:FBF9:0:0:0:1 (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Old comment, but I'm sure I've read it somewhere. I'll dig around for a ref. -- kewlgrapes (talk, contribs) 06:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

text: This should do. -- kewlgrapes (talk, contribs) 06:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

text: This is pure hogwash. You can quote internet references all you want. But, having worked there for 30 years, it was not referred to in that way as a general thing. Some may have, but that doesn't make it a notable nickname.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.117.115.186 (talk) 09:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  nickname 

message: I removed the list of site features as it seemed unencyclopedic and borderline advertise-y.  I'd be all for including certain site features elsewhere in the article, maybe even in a dedicated section, but not in list form.  If anyone disagrees with this change, please let me know. -- kewlgrapes (talk, contribs) 15:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Site features 

message: There is no mention of manufacturing of unit record equipment.
There is no mention of System/3
There is no mention of Systems 32, 34, 36, advanced 36
There is no mention of the 5100  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.117.115.186 (talk) 09:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  lopsided
Talk:The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life

message: hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. the "relationship between performance and front stage." what is front stage? what am I missing? KzzRzzKnocker 06:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like a theatre - there is a back-stage and a front-stage. But you are right - the explanation is not really good. --85.178.122.31 (talk) 08:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Older comments

message: german title is also not translated literally: "Wir alle spielen Theater" -> "We all act("play theater", if you translate word by word)"
mention it?  https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erving_Goffman#Werke_.28Auswahl.29 Halmerit (talk) 08:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  title usually translated literally 

message: The text indicates it was first published in 1956.  But the box on the right lists the publication date as 1959.  In addition 1959 is one of the tags at the bottom.108.244.74.98 (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publication date
Talk:Barbara Yung

message: The section Ascension to fame is largerly the story of The Legend of the Condor Heroes.  It'd be better rewritten and add some information about her other achievement.  — HenryLi (Talk) 06:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it.  Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed.  I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy.  In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 03:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  YouTube links
Talk:Nicola (magazine)

message: What is technically restricting this article from being capitalized? Are you saying that the magazine title is not capitalized as a matter of the magazine's house style? Zachkchk 06:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Technical Restrictions?

message: There are no references or citations on this page, so I'm marking it with . Usb10 (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs Citations 
Talk:Ayako Enomoto

message: I've copy-edited the article and removed the notice. I also deleted a few questionable categories in the stat box ("skin color=yellow"?) Zachkchk 06:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Australia national football team (disambiguation)

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
*Oppose per stats provided in the discussion section. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Requested move to Australia national football team (disambiguation), to allign with the following articles:
* Australia national association football team
* Australia women's national association football team
* Australia national rugby league team
* Australia women's national rugby league team
* Australia national rugby union team
* Australia women's national rugby union team
* Australia national American football team
* Australia international rules football team
* Australia women's international rules football team
--2nyte (talk) 13:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move to [[Australia national football team (disambiguation)]] 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Australian national football team (Disambiguation) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 24#Australian national football team (Disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Steel1943 (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Australian national football team (Disambiguation)" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Robert Rich (musician)

message: Is he? Hyacinth 06:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, he is Robert Rich. -- 201.69.46.149 (talk) 09:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

text: He's often referred to as a "new age" artist by journalists and critics, which is why this article identifies him as one. 66.234.194.63 (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: New age

message: Why, what, where, and how may this article's tone or style not be appropriate for Wikipedia? How should it be cleaned up? Hyacinth (talk) 04:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Tone
Talk:Sushilkumar Shinde

message: Born in 1941=> 16 years old in 1957=bailiff, I am not sure if that is accurate.
You didn't get a license at that age in those days.
-Alok 10:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: born in 1941, bailiff in 1957

message: This section has nothing to do with Sushilkumar Shinde. It looks like a user doesn't like him added so many things that have no relation with him. User also interpreted facts as controversy. In short I am going to clean up article. Suggestion is welcome. Thanks--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 18:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms and controversies 

message: History 110.225.56.151 (talk) 12:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upsc 
Talk:Bitter electromagnet

message: Can anyone find a picture of what one of these actually looks like?
--A diagram would be good; a picture of a real one, with scale would be good also.
Zebediah49 03:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A picture?

message: It seems that highest fileld possible needs more definition. 
Bitter electromagnets can be made of either conductive metals or High Temperature superconductors(HTS). This article from 2006 defines making of Bitter Solenoid Magnet up to 50 Tesla with HTS, which much higher than that pointed in article.  
http://accelconf.web.cern.ch/AccelConf/e06/PAPERS/WEPLS108.PDF 
--Nevit (talk) 08:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Highest Field Possible

message: Did they always use flywheel-generators ?  What voltage and current ?  What power output ? - Rod57 (talk) 13:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  What power supply ?
Talk:Discrete spectrum

message: IMHO this expression is an oxymoron. It is namely the Hydrogen atom those energy spectrum is discrete. The thing with a continuous spectrum (i.e. that lies above the Rydberg energy) is a system consisting of one hydrogen nucleus and one electron in vacuum. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: . Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ionized atom