lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Foxtrot

message: I removed the following line:
"Get Together; Fox Trot", however, was published by M. Witmark & Sons in 1905.
Most probably the source has typo in the catalogue, because various bios of Victor Herbert, eg here say that it was published in 1915.  A quite authoritative source would be "American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers. Victor Herbert. A bibliography of his recordings, compositions, operettas, instrumental, choral and other works." New York, 1959. Must check the library. - 7-bubёn >t 17:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Confirmed: "Get Together Fox Trot" is dated by 1915 (MCMXY). - 7-bubёn >t 18:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

text: There is a hypothesis that  Victor Herbert republished his older pieces under the pseudonym Noble MacClure to cover under the emerging ASCAP copyright system the music pieces which fit the the current dance crazes, but i don't have sources reputable enough to confirm this (i.e., even the existence of the hypothesis itself in published form). - 7-bubёn >t 18:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Pre-Harry Fox Foxtrots

message: from :
"At the end of 1918 the wave arose, then known as the 'jazz-roll'. The American Morgan introduced a sort of open spinturn, the 'Morgan-turn', in 1919. In 1920 Mr G.K. Anderson introduced the feather step and the change of direction. The thirties had become the golden age for this dance. That is when Foxtrot tunes, figures and tempo standardised." Good to know, but better sources are necessary. - Altenmann >t 17:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  bits of history 

message: Beatuiful to watch seems more like an author opinion than an irreputable fact or a quote... Don't get me wrong, this is a thought shared by millions, but there's probably someone out in the sewers of detroit who thinks otherwise. I would get that part into a quote or a mass opinion.  75.161.61.243 (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would put "Considered beautiful to watch" 75.161.61.243 (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  To be honest, even "Considered beautiful to watch" begs the question of who is doing the consideration. Much of the article is un-encyclopaedic in tone and I have today attempted to improve it. Sadly, I'm no expert in dance. Longwayround (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is that first sentence neutral? 

message: Harry Fox is mentioned in the infobox but the body says other people invented the dance and don't mention him and give another explanation for the name of the dance. Then the lede says the answer was developed in the 1920s and doesn't mention the 1914 in the box and the body. What is right?--Peter cohen (talk) 14:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox, lede and body out of line 

message: I'm adding information on the clothing worn during the competitions, should this be its own section? or should I add it to an already existing section?Kaygue930 (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question
Talk:Personality and Individual Differences

message: I oppose merging this article with International Society for the Study of Individual Differences. As a journal, it is a separate independent entry, and journals have (or should have) their own web pages on Wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcbutler (talk • contribs) 19:02, 10 March 2008
:I support if they can't be expanded much beyond current length. This is probably not the case though... we need to establish notability and sources first I think.  Richard001 (talk) 03:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger

message: Hello, my recent edit was reverted by User:Viewmont_Viking with the reason given as "does not add" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Personality_and_Individual_Differences&diff=prev&oldid=1016675338. I wonder if I could have some clarity on this editorial decision? Thanks. RichieRichieD (talk) 13:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You would need to have a reference that specifically mentions their Association with the Pioneer Fund and that it is relevant that they have an association. Showing that individuals have both an association with pioneer fund and this journal and creating an entire section on the Associate with the Pioneer Fund is considered original research and Synthesis of published material. Thank you for bringing this to the talk page.--VVikingTalkEdits 14:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed section describing associations of journal with the pioneer fund
Talk:Traditions and student activities at MIT

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :MIT/Wellesley Toons. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 1#MIT/Wellesley Toons until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  BilledMammal (talk) 04:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "MIT/Wellesley Toons" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Rejuvenation Research

message: I removed the remark about the self-citation rate of this journal. IRWolfie in the latest edit summary is mistaken: it is not referenced to the same source. Look at the previous edits: I updated the IF from the 2011 one to the 2012 one and changed the reference accordingly. The 43% figure refers to the 2011 IF. For 2012 it stands at 26%. That is still rather high, but not as exceptional any more, so I feel that it is not justified any more to mention this in this article, given that we don't usually mention this for other journals either (in previous years it was justified because the figure was ridiculously high - don't understand why TR never de-listed them for this). If you insist on keeping this phrase in, the 2012 figures should be used, not the 2011 ones. Hope this explains. --Randykitty (talk) 10:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers for the explanation, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

text: *In addition, looking at the citations the journal's articles published in different years get, one sees that there are actually not very many self-cites, except for the two years counting for the 2013 IF (2011 and 2012). Don't understand why Thomson Reuters tolerates this obvisous gaming of the system... --Randykitty (talk) 14:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self citation rate 

message: The link to biennial is not an error, because biennial is not simply a disambiguation page. The definition given at the beginning of bienniel (which is the reason I made the link) is not contained in any of the subsequent links on that page. --Ben Best 12:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to [[biennial]]
Talk:Canon of Kings

message: If the Canon of Kings is so accurate then what about the disagreement between this and Assyrian chronology?  The Babylonian Chronicle states that Nineveh fell in Nabopolassar's (612BCE according to Ptolemy) but historians also say the ninth year of Assyrian king Assur-dan III is 763BC and if we count forward from that year using eponym and king lists etc we can get as far as 668BCE (start of Ashurbanipal's reign) but things get confusing after that.  Encyclopædia Britannica (1959 edition, Vol. 2, page 569) gives Ashurbanipal's reign as 668-625 B.C.E. Then, on page 851 of the same volume, the reign is given as 669-630 B.C.E. In volume 5 of the same edition, page 655, it lists this same reign as "668-638(?)." 1965 edition says "669-630 or 626." (Vol. 2, page 573) A History of Israel, John Bright, 1964 says 633.  Ancient Iraq, Georges Roux, 1964 says 631.  1962 Interpreter's Dictionary: 629.  Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, D. D. Luckenbill, 1926: 626.  And of course there are different dates for Ashurbanipal's likely successor Ashur-etillu-ilani and Sin-shar-ishkun (apparently the king at the time of Nineveh's fall) - dated tablets have been found only up to his seventh year, but to fit Ptolemy we have to extend his reign longer than that.
81.101.135.195 (talk) 09:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The later years of Ashurbanipal are confused, but I don't see what that has to do with anything, since Ashurbanipal does not appear in the Canon of Kings.  The mysterious Kandalanu does, and he was probably not the same person as Ashurbanipal. john k (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

text: It is certainly not the only surviving information about Babylonian records that we have. john k (talk) 16:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy
Talk:Second banana

message: To the random IP address who removed the prod: Where do you see this article going?  Even if etymology could be found on the term, that's only an element to an encyclopedia article, and this kind of fails as a disambig page since the "subordinate" meaning overwhelms the comic foil one.  One and a half meanings where one is close to a dicdef do not a disambig page make, but maybe I'm missing something.  SnowFire 07:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Existential questions for page 

message: " burlesque era of the 1950s" is bull; see Harry Steppe, which cites 
:"About: Bananas", John Wilcock, March 30, 1958, Sunday, Section: MAGAZINE, Page SM53, 1066 words 
(available for a fee at NY Times). The sentence from the article should be quoted to fulfill the fact-tag. --Jerzy•t 04:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content
Talk:James A. Blaisdell

message: So I know the article is still a little rough, and certainly could be better sourced and fleshed out.  The current reference definitely has some useful, more direct sources that would be great to properly work into the article.Vter4life 07:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Created
Talk:Chilotan architecture

message: — Assignment last updated by AWFarrow (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Architectural History

message: I am editing this article as a part of a Wiki Education project for a class I am taking. Feel free to ask any questions about my changes.
Thank you 
BuckskinBasher90 (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits and proposed edits
Talk:Journal of Food Science

message: in a different journal than this one--222.67.215.80 (talk) 10:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  It looks like that cited Ref 1 is published.... 

message: http://members.ift.org/IFT/searchresults.htm?query=CODEN
--222.67.215.80 (talk) 10:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  CODEN number is not traceable.... 

message: International Journal of Food Science & Technology
has been added based on the following
http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=0950-5423
--222.67.215.80 (talk) 10:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A topic of.... 

message: is not entirely traceable
http://members.ift.org/IFT/Pubs/JournalofFoodSci/jfsstaff/
--222.67.215.80 (talk) 11:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editorial Staff at the journal site... 

message: All the above points are nit-picking in the extreme. Every single trivial fact in an article does not have to be the subject of a full-blown citation, otherwise every article in wikipedia would have to be deleted. Why, for example, would an editor lie about the CODEN? Anyway, CODENs are handled by CAS and a quick check there proves that  JFDSAZ  does indeed refer to the JFS. Wow!! 
And who cares if some of the staff aren't listed on the journal website? Is any user of Wikipedia likely to be mislead? Is anyone trying to put fake info into such a trivial article? Why am I worrying about this anyway?  andy (talk) 15:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Silly quibbles
Talk:Simon Bailey (priest)

message: I have removed the following lines from the end of the Dinnington section:
The priest visibly dying among the people to whom he ministered was a powerful symbol of Christ, evocative of the line, 'The wounded surgeon plies the steel', in East Coker by T. S. Eliot.http://www.dinningtontoday.co.uk/http://www.rotherhamparishcouncils.gov.uk/Home/Dinnington/Minutes.aspx
The problem is that it is not at all clear who says this. If it was Simon Bailey's description of himself (perhaps on the book he wrote about dying?), then we can consider restoring it but at the moment it sounds more like a comment of the editor. Neither the edition of Dinnington  Today cited, nor the Dinnington council minutes  are available on the internet at the places referenced, so they don't help us on this.  I am also not convinced it is the sort of comment that needs putting in a wikipedia / encyclopedia article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northtowner (talk • contribs) 23:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  A symbol of Christ? Removal of TS Eliot reference
Talk:Mental Models

message: Just wanted to say thanks to the people who wrote this article. I tried some different databases to find reference data for an article that turned out to actually be a section of this book.
Thanks.
Itangalo 07:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks 

message: I think this article is notable because the academic section of WP:NBOOK says that if a book is published by a respected academic press that goes a long way toward establishing notability, and it was.  Also, in the theory of mental models, it is cited as the next major work since 1947, almost FORTY years earlier, since  Kenneth Craik's The Nature of Explanation, the book credited with originating the theory.  This is admittedly a specialized area and I realize this is a somewhat dry reference book, but I think a major strength of Wikipedia is helping to preserve information.  For instance, a very good history of mental models on lauradove.co has disappeared from the Internet, and it was one very good source that cited this book.  I plan to add more references to the article to help bolster my argument. Spalding (talk) 15:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: An AFD for this article has been created at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mental Models. Please comment there. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability question
Talk:Chambers's Encyclopaedia

message: Not quite sure how to proceed, but I am just reading the first of the 10 volumes I have - it is the ' new edition' A to Beaufort dated 1904 - so either this edition is missing from your list or the current info is wrong.  188.220.186.57 (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: As I understand it, the Chambers Encyclopaedia, known for its accuracy, published a list of Jewish populations in Europe just before the war. Its total was 4.5 million. Does anyone have details of this publication?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.107.88 (talk) 19:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish population
Talk:Cyclopaedia of Useful Arts and Manufactures

message: This article largely refers to the earlier, original cyclopaedia, whereas the Wiki article "Tomlinson's Cyclopaedia of Useful Arts" mostly refers to the later, heavily revised edition.
If this edition is like the later edition, it was published in several formats. (The later edition in 33 parts, or 8 volumes, or 6 volumes, or 2 volumes.) It might be useful to note in this article that it's likely other formats existed for the earlier editions, too. Unfortunately booksellers present widely varying information about publishing dates. The volumes of the later edition, at least, do not have publishing dates, probably because publishing was done incrementally. (There are changes in publishing information between the beginning and ending volumes, in my set.)
There are no citations in this Wiki article. Due to the nature of the work's publication, it would be useful if the authors described which version they have access to. (I have newer edition of the cyclopaedia, circa 1866, in 8 volumes.)
I'd really like to get consensus, here, so I'm not sure how to proceed. Some statements in this article may reflect the particular edition which the writer has to hand. Other statements are not correct, such as that the cyclopaedia was published before photography. I'm not sure what prompts the comment that it was "devised to celebrate the Great Exhibition", but the later edition was certainly not - it is explicit why the Great Exhibition material is omitted. The later edition does not just draw on British invention - although it emphasizes it. There are footnotes which make it clear that German and French sources are being drawn upon. The idea that Tomlinson's "portray people in a workshop context" is not quite clear. The later version, at least, presents many drawings of devices and manufacture which at the time were cutting edge technology. The fact that they are shown in a rural setting is simply depicting the location of the state-of-the-art. (Note strong similarities to the Diderot encyclopedia.)
The idea that Charles Tomlinson was simply the editor is probably not accurate. There's evidence from what he, himself writes, and also from the continuity of writing style, which suggests he actually wrote a substantial part of the work.
Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 11:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Old and New versions of cyclopaedia
Talk:Rees's Cyclopædia

message: I have now wikilinked all "notable" topics in the Cyclopaedia at List of Rees's Cyclopædia articles (i.e., those with minimum 15 columns). For posterity, the complete list of redirects for entries that initially came up as redlinks (except for Machinery for manufacturing ships' blocks and Manufacture of cotton) can now be viewed here (easier cases) and here (harder cases). JJB 10:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikilinking complete 

message: Any advice on what to name the work as a category/template for Wikimedia Commons? Chamber's Cyclopaedia is already the one under "Cyclopaedia". Thoughts? Morgan Riley (talk) 01:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, with same name as the articleMorgan Riley (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Commons category naming

message: Would anyone object to splitting off the long list of contributors into a separate "list" page, retaining the explanatory paragraph at hatnoting it in the appropriate section? It would make the page much shorter in length by removing the long lists from this page, much as how there is a separate page that lists the articles.Morgan Riley (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No no, everything would be included—It's good stuff. It's just very long, so I figured much like how List of Rees's Cyclopædia articles has its own page, that all the info on the contributorship would make sense to have its own. Also, I figure that the the initial few paragraphs summarizing the contributorships would remain here in summary style, as well as on the new page. I figured a list page would be best for this, or might a normal article be more appropriate? (I don't have much experience with list pages) Morgan Riley (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Splitting off contributors

message: I've just created a new page listing long biographical articles in Rees. But I've made a cock-up of the page's title. Instead of reading '... articles IN Rees's Cyclopaedia', I've written '... articles ON Rees's Cyclopaedia'. Is there some helpful colleague who can put it right, please? Thanks you. Apwoolrich (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: HELP

message: One of the first sources listed is "Anon., Review of Vol 1 in the Annual Review and History of Literature, vol 1, 1802, pp 859–66". I'm looking at that volume and don't see it. Am I mistaken? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources
Talk:Saint Peter's University Hospital

message: i guess this page needs a complete rewrite.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.100.240.238 (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  complete wrtitten needed 

message: Wow, what cajones you have.  You even admit to committing a copyright violation...  I don't care if you're an employee of the hospital.  Unless you have written, notarized permission from the hospital to do this, DON'T.  Other than the copyvio notice, I blanked the page.  --DodgerOfZion 20:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio
Talk:Reporter of Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States

message: Endorse. I was thinking of doing the same thing. (My hesitation was from discomfort at the number of "of"s strung in a row, but it can't be helped.) Newyorkbrad 00:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pagemove

message: I have made some edits to this article in the past few months. (I am the same person as 188.182.13.238 and my IP changed because I moved house). I've been trying to find more sources for the article, but other than a document I added in this edit on 21 July my search has been mostly fruitless. There are two particular questions that I've been unable to find answers to and sources for:
Firstly, who appoints the Reporter of Decisions? Most of the articles for the individual office holders seem to suggest that either the Supreme Court as a group, or the Chief Justice individually, makes the pick. Hence this edit on 16 July, which among other things adds a "Citation needed" for who appoints the Reporter.
Secondly, which of the Reporters of Decisions edited United States Reports volumes 440-444? Before I came upon this article, the list of Reporters gave some overlapping numbers of volumes that each Reporter edited. Walter Wyatt was said to have edited volumes 322–376, his successor Henry Putzel Jr. to have edited volumes 376–449, and his successor Henry Curtis Lind to have edited volumes 440–479. This means that volume 376 and volumes 400-449 each were listed as having two different editors (Wyatt and Putzel in the former case, Putzel and Lind in the latter). Of course, there can only be one editor for each volume, so these numbers can't be right.
I checked several websites trying to find who edited which volumes, but none of them even mentioned the existence of the Reporter of Decisions. Eventually I found out that USR 376 was by Wyatt, but I forget where and how I found this information. Some time later (in this edit on 11 August), I got the idea to check the Wikipedia articles for each of the volumes 440-449. I found that the volumes 445-449 only contained cases from 1980, a year listed as being during Lind's term, which means that those volumes were his. And it leaves a smaller overlap, since now volumes 440-444 are the only ones left that still have multiple editors listed.
Can anybody find a source for which Reporter of Decisions edited which USR volumes? Or does anybody have ideas for how to narrow down which volumes were Putzel's and which were Lind's? - 212.130.152.24 (talk) 08:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a citation for "who appoints" the RofD. Regarding your question about volumes edited, Putzel edited U.S. 440-444; however, prior to succeeding Putzel, under whom he had worked as Assistant Reporter, Lind edited Supreme Court Reports, Lawyers' Edition. Drdpw (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dearth of sources
Talk:Ward County (disambiguation)

message: I'm note sure why Ward County shouldn't redirect here to the disambig page instead of to the ND county page. Size (geographic or population) really shouldn't make that big of a difference. There are plenty of ND counties with names that other counties in other states share, but pages like Morton County, Cass County, and Williams County redirect to disambig pages...not to a specific county. --MatthewUND(talk) 07:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect
Talk:Brad Gooch

message: I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. Feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 06:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography 