lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:San Giorgio Maggiore (church), Venice

message: I have inserted a photograph showing the church in full sun. I am working on some improvements to the article.
Waysider1925 (talk) 14:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: Attilios has removed a photograph for the second time. Each time he left a photograph which in my view was a less good picture than the one he preferred to keep.
I have restored the introductory picture which I consider to provide an excellent view of the church on a sunny evening when it looks its best. I see no harm in leaving the other picture in the info-box, particularly as it shows the whole island as well as the church (as stated in the caption) but if he feels impelled to delete one of them, it is the picture in the infobox which ought to go. Do not put the first picture in the infobox. It needs to be bigger to make an impact and to introduce the reader to the church with an image that does not necessarily have to be enlarged.
Regarding the Sebastiano Ricci painting, I have left that on the right - I hope to add more reproductions of paintings later - but it ought to be smaller than the major picture of the interior, especially as anybody interested in the painting will need to enlarge the image in any event.
Waysider1925 (talk) 11:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to point out - for casual readers - that you're basically trying to insert your own picture at the top of the article. [This one]. A fairly shoddy image shot on film in 1988; washed-out, covered in hairs. Lots of barrel distortion, lots of vignetting. The colour balance is such that it looks to have been shot on the coldest day of the year. It looks awful and the scan is terrible as well. I'm sure you had a great time in Venice. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

text: In fact it took about ten minutes to vastly improve this with photoshop, here, working from a low-res copy, except that the original scan is of such poor quality that further work is futile. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 07:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the picture (admittedly my own) because I thought and still think that it was a better picture than the one previously used. If you have a picture which you think is clearly better, you are welcome to substitute it. I do not pretend to be a professional photographer or even a skilled amateur. Perhaps my skin is too thin, but I do feel your comments are unnecessarily rude and oblivious of the obligation to be courteous. I always have a great time in Venice which I have visited about 30 times since 1980; but I do not understand what your commment is meant to imply. Unfortunately advancing age is making it more difficult to jump into boats and I have not been back since I started editing this article. I fully agree that you have improved the picture, but you do not seem to have placed the improved version in the article, which I hope you will do. More and better photos of the paintings are also badly needed to illustrate the article.
Waysider1925 (talk) 18:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photographs
Talk:Leykis 101

message: No, this is still the same article, only some of the information has been removed. Ckessler 05:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Prod contest reason

message: Removal of the redirect is not vandalism, this article has gone through AFD twice, was deleted and recreated. It's copied directly from Leykis' webpage, and is merely a list, not an article. Ckessler 04:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect
Talk:Hamming(7,4)

message: I just split this from Hamming code so forgive me if parts of it read like it was from the other article. Cburnett 02:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I overhauled the entire article and rewrote it to follow the general Hamming code form (parity bit p_k on the 2^k bit). Cburnett 06:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Split

message: What is the reason the bits are arranged in that order (for example in the first table in the 'Goal' section)? Wouldn't it make more sense to have the 4 data bits first? 93.172.144.97 (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about the order of bits

message: It is confusing that the data bits are named d_i and the parity bits p_i, while the data vector is named \mathbf{p}. Is this a widespread convention? The data vector should ideally be named \mathbf{d}, or the naming of the bits should be changed. 129.241.123.192 (talk) 21:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming of the data vector

message: According to entry Hamming code,the generator matrix G of Hamming(7,4) shall be 4 by 7. But In Hamming(7,4), the G is 7 by 4.
--Zxl.gzhu (talk) 07:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The generator matrix G 

message: These are different in this article and in Hamming code. Is at least one of these correct? Matma Rex pl.wiki talk 23:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hamming(7,4) matrices G and H 

message: At present, the page says "Hamming's (7,4) algorithm can correct any single-bit error, or detect all single-bit and two-bit errors." I believe this is confusing, because it makes it sound like the code has two modes: (1) correcting single-bit errors, or (2) merely detecting single-bit errors as well as two-bit errors.
A subtlety is that the code can actually be used two ways, (1) correcting single-bit errors and detecting two-bit errors (but three-bit errors are "corrected" to an incorrect message), or (2) detecting all errors of up to three bits. This may not be an important thing to mention in the article, but it adds a level of confusion to the way it's currently written.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.222.21.196 (talk) 17:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Describing the error-correcting capabilities
Talk:List of Leave It to Beaver episodes

message: According to here, the pilot shouldn't be classed as part of the rest of the series, which would mean renumbering the episodes in the article. - Dudesleeper ·  Talk 17:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. - Dudesleeper ·  Talk 16:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Standalone pilot

message: On "The Paper Route," I think Beav and Wally get the paper job to get money for a bike, not baseball mitts. - Nick4404 (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The EPGuides external link supports your inkling. I've changed it accordingly. - Dudesleeper /  Talk 21:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paper route 
Talk:Languages of Peru

message: I do not think so. They'd rather use Urdu (sharing a common lineage with Hindi) or Punjabi (the most spoken language in Pakistan). Sroulik 03:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Do migrants from Pakistan speak Hindi ?

message: The link to "There are currently fourteen defined language families in Peruvian territory, in addition to many more isolated and unclassified languages, such as Urarina.[3]" isn't a reliable reference. The reference links you to a website that sells books.
Most links/references do not work. Could have to do with the fact that they are PItalic texteruvian websites.
The article states "In addition to Spanish, Quechua and Aymara, there are many Amazonian languages such as Urarina,[2] Aguaruna and Peruvian Sign Language.", this needs to be edited because Peruvian Sign Language isn't only spoken in the Amazon. According to the PSL citation link, it is mostly spoken in Lima, the capital of Peru.
The graph on this article doesn't have a citation and also groups "unanswered" and "Deaf" together, they should be completely separate. This reference is underrepresented since the Deaf population has a language of their own.
It would be helpful if the sentence "A considerable number of languages were once spoken on the northern coast and in the northern Andes, but other than some in the northern highlands (Cajamarca, Inkawasi-Cañaris and Chachapoyas), all others have died out - Mochica is thought to have gone extinct in the 1950s." was cited and elaborated more on how or why "all others have died out".
Lsilvaal (talk) 04:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links are not the most effective
Talk:Notes on a Scandal (film)

message: Might make a good heading - I haven't read the book, but would be interested to know... The wikipedia page on the novel implies Barbara is less predatory in the novel - is this true?  --Tomhannen 22:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences between novel and screenplay 

message: Some editors simply add a Trivia template when a section is labeled as such.  So is the case with the notes on the actresses portraying Queen Elizabeth as featured in the film.  I will change the labeling and removed the template.Light Bulb 08:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: Is it possible that Barbara suffers from Asperger's syndrome? Watching the film, I've noticed that she seems to exhibit some of the behaviour associated with it. --Dominus Noster (talk) 12:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Such as what? They have impaired social and communication skills; Barbara Covett has no such difficulties. She is a skilled, devious, controlling manipulator. Autistics are virtually incapable of psychological manipulation. She has borderline personality disorder. Jim Michael (talk) 02:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Barbara

message: Nearly all of the differences listed can be attributed to the fact that the novel is written exclusively from the perspective of Barbara, who is an imperfect narrator and concentrates on the flaws of the other characters.
I'm going to go ahead and fix this.
Electrosaurus (talk) 10:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences section 
Talk:Interstate 94 in Michigan

message: The sign for US 131 going east still say "BL-I 94". Would someone fix the exit for that? Please.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:401:C401:9850:B9C9:5B63:60BF:9848 (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  US 131 and Kalamazoo business loop
Talk:Doré bar

message: It may well be the case that this article should be classified as a "stub", but deleting it from wikipedia entirely would lose valuable information, i.e. the subject was previously not covered _at_all_ on any other wikipedia page.  Indeed, the entire process of gold is moved from ore to precious metal is absent from wikipedia.  My, there's so much room for addition of material here.  What a pity to focus any effort at all on deletion of material.  
CSD A1 says:
<quote>
Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context for the article to qualify as a valid stub.
</quote>
Sdsds 03:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Delete?) 

message: :It seems to be missing an introduction, without any country or location. Jimfbleak.talk.13:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Localization?) 

message: This shouild be WP:MERGEd with Doré bar. Although one is the substance and one is the object, both articles are stubs and could easily be covered in a single article. User:Sophie means wisdom 13:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge
Talk:Piano Sonata No. 3 (Chopin)

message: To respond to this commented-out--comment
I realize liner notes probably don't conform to the standards of references for Wikipedia; furthermore, the statement referenced technically expresses a point of view, but one that I believe is in consensus with the musical community.  Not sure how to proceed here; would appreciate some help.
As to the first point: liner notes are often used as references in music works articles, so practice may be overtaking standards here if you are right, and I don't know if you are right.  As to the second: instead of "profound", one usually describes if possible the more provable/discussable facts that (maybe?) lead one to think this in the first place...  Schissel | Sound the Note! 03:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: untitled 

message: I've copied this here from Talk:Transcriptions by Franz Liszt, as it's had no response for 6 years:
* I've just come across a claimed arrangement (or "variant") by Liszt of the 4th movement of Chopin's Piano Sonata No. 3 in B minor, here.  I can find no record of this anywhere else, and I have my doubts as to its authenticity.  Can anyone assist here, please?  --  Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liszt "variant" of final movement
Talk:Hasegawa Tōhaku

message: Hello! This is to let editors know that the featured picture :File:Hasegawa Tohaku - Pine Trees (Shōrin-zu byōbu) - left hand screen.jpg, which is used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for May 31, 2021. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2021-05-31. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page.  If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  File:Hasegawa Tohaku - Pine Trees (Shōrin-zu byōbu) - left hand screen.jpg scheduled for POTD
Talk:Interstate 94 in North Dakota

message: Should the junction mentioned with the Bismarck Expressway in Mandan be changed to I-194? even though it I-194 is unsigned. Cause the Bismarck Expressway doesn't have a logo and to me it just seems a bit out of place on the list of major junctions. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 03:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  I-194/Bismarck Expressway
Talk:Interstate 94 in Montana

message: In the section about Treasure, Rosebud and Custer Counties, I am seeing something (mile marker 63.01) about ranch access.  Could this possibly be a grade-level intersection?  I have read that this situation arises in very remote areas (most notably I-10 in western Texas), where the costs do not justify building an INTERCHANGE.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.52.3 (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a picture of a sign for one Same idea as those in Texas, but they are grade separated interchanges. –Fredddie™ 03:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this about ranch access? 

message: River crossings...
You ought to explain where (by milepost) there are any crossings of major rivers, such as the Missouri River or the Yellowstone River.47.215.183.159 (talk) 11:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  River crossings 

message: The miles on I-94 should be 249, mile markers go up to 250, highest exit number is 248, and net miles say 248 miles or something, so I don't get why that says 219. DENBRO1995 (talk) 23:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The 219.38 figure is from the FHWA source. You need to find an appropriate reliable source for your claim, because mileposts may not always reflect actual mileage due to realignments or other discrepancies. I've replaced it with a state log, but simply changing two digits without finding a source is not an appropriate way to fix an error. SounderBruce 23:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  249 or 219?
Talk:Parkgate, Cheshire

message: #Article needs to be massively expanded using Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements as a guide.
#It should make use of sections, using Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements as a guide.
#Infobox to be added (use Template:Infobox UK place.)
#Photos need to be added.
#References and Citations are crucial for wikipedia, and so these must be added as the article is expanded. Make sure that as many as possible are "in-line" citations.(See WP:References, WP:V, and WP:CITE for guidance.)
 DDStretch  (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment Report 

message: Added Cheshire infobox and initial creation of sections and in-line citations. Snowy 1973 12:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Progress
Talk:Barnes School

message: Can be easily improved. I will start. DGG 03:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial

message: Is the school song notable or should it be remvoed? RJFJR 16:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been removed.  The lyrics to school songs should never be included in school articles per WP:COPYVIO. LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: School song?

message: Lists of names in this article should be sourced in accordance with WP:BLP. As there is no way of constantly maintaining linked articles, this applies to names which have a Wikipedia article as well as those that do not. Any name listed with no verifiable citations should be removed. Refer to WP:NLIST for guidance. Fæ (talk) 09:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Lists of names
Talk:Sam Gagner

message: Removed: When he was drafted to edmonton oilers, his number one fan is Bridgette Tsang. She is obsessed with him and really loves him. She knows all about Sam Gagner.
Seriously Bridgette, do you want me to call the cops and get a restraining order? Be cool.
Rykoshet (talk·contributions) 03:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:NFL Showdown

message: I'm going to try and wikify this.  I think one of the main problems is that it is integrating the entire game with a specific group that practices the game- which causes a messy feel. I'll attempt to seperate the two, create a new page for the Yorktown segment
Danielfolsom 04:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Begining

message: The article was turned into a stub in wikifying.  The majority of the text was a bout a bunch of people who formed up a league to play the game, and is content that is suitable for a personal web page, but not an encyclopedia article. -- Whpq 15:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikification
Talk:Ross Anderson (skier)

message: A more independent source for his speed record would be better, but in a quick search I couldn't find much with the most recent number besides his own home page and the Ski Apache page. -- Spireguy 04:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: I reverted the two recent edits by Florida01 for the stated reasons. Thanks for trying to contribute; however, if you want to expand this page with more information, you cannot just copy from another website. Also, a person's own home page is a poor source since it is not neutral. -- Spireguy 19:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent revert
Talk:Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe

message: Under "Modern Basilica" it says that "The structure is supported by 350 pilots that prevent the basilica from sinking with the rest of the ground." I've never seen the word "pilot" used in this manner. Is this a construction term? Notmyrealname 20:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pilots?

message: The section says the new basilica is built on the place of the old basilica. To me, this reads like the old one was demolished, but it is still standing.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I got it. The one which is standing now was constructed between 1695 and 1709.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern basilica

message: The article refers to the "The old one was closed for many years and repairs have recently finished. " under the "Old Basilica" section.
When were these repairs completed? The edit dates back to at least September, 2013... I don't think of that as "recent" in 2016..73.222.44.81 (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  date for completion?
Talk:Vancouver Dragons

message: This article seems to be confusing the cities of Vancouver, WA, USA and Vancouver, BC, Canada, along with teams that have payed in either city. 199.10.84.133 (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing Multiple Cities
Talk:Vic Diaz

message: For historical record, this article was created on December 6, 2005 as Vic Diaz and had its main title header moved to Vic Díaz on June 18, 2006. Although the subject's surname is "Diaz", Vic Diaz is not an actor from the Spanish-language cinema and does not use an accent in his on-screen billing. His filmic venue is the Philippines and his native Tagalog Wikipedia lists him as Vic Diaz. He is also listed as Vic Diaz at IMDb, TCMDb and American Film Institute Catalog. Today, May 30, 2016, nearly ten years after the June 2006 move, the name has been submitted for move from Vic Díaz back to Vic Diaz. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 17:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Vic Diaz]], not [[Vic Díaz]]
Talk:Benjamin LaGuer

message: The Benjamin LaGuer case became a flashpoint in the 2006 race for Massachusetts Governor. See the "Deval Patrick" page for details. It is therefore a case of significant public interest.
--Eric Goldscheider 04:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Copying a comment from the article — Ginkgo100 talk
It is therefore a case of significant public interest. I am a journalist who has researched it extensively. I maintain www.BenLaGuer.com where I have posted many primary documents which I will link to for purposes of substantiating the content of this article, whic is still in the sandbox stage.
--EricGoldscheider
:Sorry, I don't see that as an argument for keeping it. The significant part of the case, its effect on the Patrick campaign, is covered in that article. Anything outside that is a pretty routine crime report like thousands of others. If there's more information relevant to the Patrick campaign, add it there. If there's more information not relevant there, then realistically, it's not notable. Fan-1967 04:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copying comment
Talk:United Nations Emergency Force

message: The section on UNEF I states that "On May 16, 1967, the Egyptian government ordered all United Nations forces out of Sinai effective immediately." This is not true. President Nasser initially only demanded that some of the troops left, it was U Thant who said that they couldn't remove some without all troops leaving. It wasn't until 18 May that Nasser demanded that all the troops leave the Sinai. This seems like a pretty major mistake Alcatraz ii (talk) 12:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect information? 

message: Michael Oren doesn't mention this at all in his comprehensive history of the period, Six Days of War.  If nobody can back this up within one week, I will deleting it from the article.  --GHcool 01:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Michael Oren's Six Days of War has its critics, and there are valid primary sources beyond his book which mention Israel's rejection of the UNEF on its side of the armistice line...see Abba Eban with Footnotes by Norman G. Finkelstein (Journal of Palestine Studies, Spring 2003, Vol. 32, No. 3, Pages 74-89) for a comprehensive review of Michael Oren's book. Zadooplum 23:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Claim of Israeli rejection of UNEF on their side of the armistice line

message: I removed the reference/citing sources tag, as it seems all "dubious" claims have been cited...Zadooplum 04:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: removed reference tag

message: This article should be about UNEFs in general, not just UNEF I as it currently is. Cromdog (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion 

message: The section "Casualties" removal seems somewhat the appropriate action though not the desired. Blogs are not an acceptable source per WP:BLOGS. Is there a replacement for the source (blogs.oglobo.globo.com) ? I prefer that content not be removed. Jerium (talk) 13:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Casualties" section
Talk:NASCAR Mexico

message: I have started a discussion at WikiProject NASCAR to see if it make sense to merge this article with the NASCAR Corona Series. Royalbroil 21:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger
Talk:List of commentaries on Mishneh Torah

message: Is this really a commentary? It is just a collection of talks reassembled to fit the Mishneh Torah. I don't think Likutie Shichot counts as a commentary. Therefore why should Hadran al HaRambam?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.130.184.8 (talk) 09:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hadran al HaRambam 

message: Should we add Mahaneh Ephraim to the list of commentaries?  It is lomdus based on the Rambam on Nezikin.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.159.243.24 (talk) 08:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Machaneh Efrayim