lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Lebensohl

message: Hmm - the contents seems to be messed up. What have I done wrong? Cambion 14:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looked OK to me, except that WP:LEAD was overlong. I restructured it a bit—is that what you wanted? Duja 14:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format 

message: You and your partner should have an agreement about what shows and what denies a stopper.
But most people play: http://homepage.mac.com/bridgeguys/Conventions/Lebensohl.html 
# direct cuebid is stayman and denies stopper
# first 2NT and the cuebid shows stopper
# direct 3NT denies stopper
# first 2Nt and the 3Nt promises stopper
forcing, invite or sign-off ?
# suit at the 2-level is signoff
# suit after 2NT (lower ranking than the overcalled suit) is signoff
# suit after 2nT (higher ranking than the overcalled suit) in invite
# direct bid of 3 of a suit aís forcing at least for 1 round
So after 1NT 2spades you have no invite only forcing (3H) or sign-off (2NT and later 3H)
After 1NT 2hearts you have 3 possibilities:
# 2 spades (signoff)
# 3 spades (forcing at least 1 round)
# 2NT and later 3 spades after partners 3 club-relay (invite)
Xx1943 (talk) 09:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your treatment here although where I come from it's about 50:50 whether people play 2NT as showing or denying (I make sure I agree it when I sit down). Your edits made the article inconsistent so I've restored the consistent version. TBH I don't think it matters which version we describe. Any thoughts people?Cambion (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which sequences shows a stopper? Which are signoff,  forcing or inviting 
Talk:A Return to Love

message: In attempting to edit the Marianne Williamson article, it occurred to me that A Return to Love indeed deserves its own article because the book is the most successful book of ACIM interpretation, and one of the most successful self-help/New Thought books of all time. That in itself makes the book notable. As I mention on the page (a cited and quoted mention, by the way), this book gained Marianne Williamson time on Oprah, 20/20, and was Publisher's Weekly's best seller for about 10 weeks. That in itself makes the book notable. 
Marianne Williamson is the author of many other books, but in my opinion only this first one is notable and deserves its own page. Every subsequent book by Marianne Williamson has carried the notice "By the author of A Return to Love". I think it is fine to mention her bibliography on her own personal page, but I think that this one book in particular deserves its own page. 
There are certain books that have had deep impacts within certain genres and deserve their own pages aside from the page devoted to the other. For example, Melody Beattie has her own page, and so does the book Codependent No More. I think we have a similar situation with Marianne and Return to Love. -- Andrew Parodi 08:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The two can easily be covered in a single article, since Williamson appears to be notable solely for this book and its promotion. Just zis Guy you know? 21:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You could slap a merge tag on it for further discussion when the AfD has run its course. Eusebeus 22:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Created page for "A Return to Love"

message: Please merge with the author page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marianne_Williamson  --Lance W. Haverkamp (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please merge with the author page
Talk:The Doctor Who Role Playing Game

message: Goodness!  My mind's eye caught a flash of anorak reading the snooty (and unsourced) discussion of this old game's "mediocre knowledge" of the source material.  And how dare they "flatly contradict" Mawdryn Undead on the UNIT dating controversy (q.v.).  I won't take up a strong defense of any FASA product, but the game designers talked quite plainly about the impossibility of reconciling twenty years of self-contradictory Doctor Who stories into some kind of workable reference timeline.  As this fine encyclopedia itself states, there is literally no way to resolve the UNIT dates in a way that won't "flatly contradict" something or other.  Mawdryn Undead seems as good a candidate to throw under the bus as anything else.  I submit that the FASA folks showed at least as good a knowledge of series continuity as anyone who ever actually worked on the series; don't know how you can ask more than that!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.13.219.4 (talk) 22:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Tone

message: Should this be replaced with an article on the more current (and current in print) Doctor Who Role Playing Game, Adventures in Space and Time, by Cubicle 7?
Both the FASA and Cubicle 7 games have the same name, it's simply that C7 have the current license, and the FASA game is long out of print.
Edwardfortune   —Preceding undated comment added 17:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevance compared to more recent products

message: There were some VERY OR/POV statements in the article. I cleaned it up. Anyone wishing to reinsert them will need to use WP:RS.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.0.68 (talk) 14:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed statements
Talk:Drury convention

message: Abtract rightfully removed my supposition:
"The convention was devised by American player Douglas Drury (1914-1967), supposedly because his partner Eric Murray was notorious for opening on very thin values in third and fourth seat, and the normal jump support would often get the pair overboard."
Now, I'm fairly convinced about truthfulness of that supposition (I've heard it somewhere, and Murray was legendary for his creativeness and lack of discipline at the table), but per WP:RS "I've heard it somewhere" doesn't count. Can someone dig out a source? Is anyone in possession of this book? Duja► 15:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this GSearch kind of confirms it (ACBL HoF attributes "co-invention" to Murray), and this funny usenet post hints at Kantar. Anything better around? Duja► 15:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The OEoB 6th ed p128 says "Douglas Drury devised Drury, so the story goes, as protection from the feather-light third-hand openings of his partner Eric Murray". It's a nice story and may well be true but ... Abtract 17:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supposition 

message: I played Drury for some time with Acol and it worked fine. I did get tired of explaining how it wasn't illegal though... Cambion 15:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 4 Card majors
Talk:DONT

message: DONT is not particularly popular in the UK. This may have something to do with the fact we play weak NT...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cambion (talk • contribs) 
:You refer to the "most popular method" statement? I think it's pretty POV and speculation; very superficially, I think Cappelletti is more popular even in US, having the virtue of being simple. I'll tone down the statement a bit... Duja 14:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

message: I've expanded the convention somewhat referencing weaker No Trump systems. It could still use some cleanup. I hope Duja realizes that I rely on him quite a bit to keep my contributions in order. I also have been sticking to the honour spelling on my pages, because all the other pages seem to have started with that spelling, even though we know the real spelling is honor.Eljamin 17:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh
. Thanks, I'll take a look. As for hono(u)r and other Am/Br En variations, the policy is just to stick to a single variant on any given article, not WP-globally or theme-globally. Thus, if the article already was written in Br.En. just follow it, otherwise just use whatever you prefer. Duja► 11:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm curious: what are bids 1-1 used for in the scheme over strong 1? Plus, some external links and/or references describing the idea would be welcome — Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Duja► 13:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You could agree to do whatever you want, but I use them as weak 1s - like a weak 2, but one card shorter. If you're really interested you could pick up a copy of Better Bidding with Bergen, which is sold through Amazon.com (Volume II, the competitive auctions). I've done some searching, but I haven't been able to find anything online detailing the system.Eljamin 13:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't have to put an online link; just name the book, author, and its chapter/pages in "References" section. See e.g.  (and WP:FOOT if you'd like fancy inline references). Duja► 13:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DONT over Weak NT and DONT over Big Club Systems 

message: The article currently says nothing about responses to the 2-suited bids. Without knowig these, the convention is of little value, and a reader's understanding is incomplete. 98.110.51.182 (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Responses. 

message: Currently the 1st and 3rd external links go to 404 not found. 98.110.51.182 (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Newwhist (talk) 14:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken links
Talk:Cue bid

message: I beefed up some of the section on cuebids as slam-seeking devices.  I wonder why cue-bids are hyphenated in the article, but I stuck to the established format as a matter of principle.  I also noticed that someone threw in that the Blue Team did so well for slams, because of their cuebids, blah, blah, I think that is inappropriate and I'd rather have it as quoting someone who said the above rather than just throwing that in as the author's unsubstantiated opinion.  I tried to put it as reference needed, but I confess that I don't know the wikipedia system well, so I did the best I could.  Duja will undoubtedly find this fairly soon and clean it up for me.  Thanks.
I also question whether it matters if something is a treatment or a convention and take exception to the above-mentioned claim that a 1 opening would not be a convention - but it is indeed a convention, namely 5-card majors.Eljamin 17:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slam-Seeking 

message: The contract bridge project Manual of Style indicates that where variations exist, the recommended treatment for words/phrases should be to conform to what is primary in the Glossary of contract bridge terms.   
Accordingly, this article should be moved to "Cuebid" and spelling within it amended.  Comments?  Newwhist (talk) 16:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Move article

message: Whats meant by controls ?  Just "shows a control" ? A first control would be the Ace or a void (preferably with many trumps). A second control is a singleton (and trumps) or King-Queen. There's no trick guarantee in King-Jack. K-J-10 possibly, but a Queen can take the 10 or Jack, the Ace the other one, and the likelihood that the King becomes stolen by a trump increases. 
So it would be of benefit to our readers if the word "control" could be explained, or defined rather, in the context of Cue bids. (And I'm a reader as well) Thanks ! Boeing720 (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controls - first or second ?
Talk:Cappelletti convention

message: The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge (7th edition) attributes the concept to Mike Cappelletti without any reference to Hamilton, Pottage or Helms.  References for such attributions ought to be added if they are in fact correct - which I believe them to be; will look for them. IMHO the BridgeGuys website is a good website but insufficient as an only reference. Any suggestions? Newwhist (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of the concept
Talk:Bridge convention

message: Sorry, User:Pattayabridge but Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, nor a soapbox for promotion of brilliant ideas. You're kindly requested to prove that Quest transfers are a popular convention, published in at least one major Bridge magazine or used by some major players. All that the Google search gives are self-promotions of http://www.pattayabridge.com on various web directories. Please see a similar precedent. I sympathize with your attempts to popularize your website or convention, but the WP:NOR policy of Wikipedia is that such material may be published only after some other reputable source has wrote about it. Duja► 15:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quest transfers 

message: The article currently says "Strong two clubs in natural systems denote hands of 23+ points".  But many people using Standard American and varients now play 2C for all unbalanced hands with 21 or more points. DES (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strong opening bids 

message: There is some misunderstanding in this article; conventions are "artificial" bids but 1NT and weak 2 opening bids are "natural". I will look up some references and correct this shortly. Abtract 17:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Misunderstanding

message: I added Karosel 2D under the heading "other opening bids."  Both treatments under that heading (Flannery and Multi 2D are opening bids of 2D, as is Karosel 2D (my own invention).  Unlike the article above which was questioned because Quest transfers was not published in a Bridge publication, my bridge convention was published in the May 2002 issue of the Bridge Bulletin printed Nationally by the ACBL.
TheKurgan (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Karosel 2D 

message: It seems no mention is made in Wikipedia of this aspect of bidding conventions.  Am I correct?  In any case, the descriptions of some conventions requiring an alert or announcement do not mention this aspect.  Perhaps an expert on such things (not me, I'm afraid) could add information about it?Aliotra (talk) 02:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alerts and announcements 

message: Bill Root's definition of a convention is, in my opinion, misleading. A bid is not a convention because it is unusual - it is a convention because it conveys information other than a willingness to declare a contract in the named denomination. For example, Stayman is now so common that it is the usual meaning of a 2C response to 1NT, but it is nonetheless a convention. Conversely, an opening bid of 2C that shows clubs is unusual, but it is not a convention. In any case, what is usual in one part of the world may be unusual in another, so usualness is not a reliable yardstick. 203.20.255.5 (talk) 02:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of "convention"
Talk:List of chief ministers of Kerala

message: 🙏🏻🌹🌹I have made updates to the list. Would appreciate any suggestions/help with making this a featured list. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major revision 

message: k 2402:3A80:194B:6335:0:0:0:2 (talk) 16:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  kerala muthalamaichar neraikal and kuraikal in tamil
Talk:Kaplan–Sheinwold

message: I find that the link to Norman Kay in this article invokes a musician, not the bridge player. I cannot find the proper means of categorizing the Norman Kay link -- for example, when I try to add an item to American_bridge_players, all I find on the edit page is:
:Category:Bridge players
Bridge
Can someone point me to the Help reference that explains what's going on? Thanks -- Xlmvp 14:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When there is a name ambiguity, an additional qualifier must be added to the article title. If there's one person of that name who is far more notable than the others, he/she gets the title without qualifier (see e.g. Andrew Johnson); otherwise, all should have a qualifier, and the page turned into a "disambiguation" one (see e.g. John Brown). So, in this case, Kay will have an article at Norman Kay (bridge player) one way or another, and we can see what to do with current Norman Kay later. Duja 14:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a survey to Talk:Norman Kay. You're free to vote there. Duja 15:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norman Kay mislinked 

message: I meant a short version of this to be in my edit summary but I hit Enter prematurely. I have inserted a  template following the claim that K-S would treat responder's rebid in 1C - 1D - 1H - 1S as game forcing, five diamonds and four spades. This sounds more like adherence to Walsh than K-S (I remember during the 1980s there was a Walsh player in the Boulder Country Club game). No question that in K-S, as in Walsh, responder happily bypasses a good five card diamond suit to bid even a poor four card major, and no question that 1S in the given sequence is forcing. But "game forcing" is too much in K-S, I think, and I ask the contributor to supply a citation. (I cannot find support in the original K-S, nor in the paperback, nor in the K-S Updated monograph.) TurnerHodges (talk) 01:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Responder's GF rebid
Talk:Bridge World Standard

message: This is simply to identify and record refs for the editions of BWS:
*The Pocket Guide to Bridge World Standard published in 2011 states that Bridge World Standard began in 1968 or "BWS 1968"
*The November and December 1993 editions of the Bridge World magazine references "BWS 1984"
*The November and December 1993 editions of the Bridge World magazine introduces "BWS 1994"
*The Pocket Guide to Bridge World Standard published in 2011 states "BWS 2001" as the latest
*The Bridge World has announced "BWS 2017" available on their website. Newwhist (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Editions
Talk:Bidding system

message: The EHAA system is a fun topic, but it is not really in widespread use.  The list of widespread natural systems probably should be reduced to only the other three. Paul 08:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  EHAA widespread? 

message: As a bridge illiterate, I was surprised to learn about the openness of bidding systems (I had always assumed that the meaning of the bids was something you would have to learn by observing your opponents' play). It would be nice if there could be a little expansion on the subject, like how common such questions are in competitive play, and what penalties are applied if it should come to be known that the answer was incorrect. I am sure that, at lower club levels, there must be occasions when a player does not even know what his partner's bid meant, having forgotten some intricacy of the system used. Is that player penalized for this? -- Jao (talk) 10:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the answer to the second question at Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge#Mistaken bid or explanation – I don't know why I didn't look there to begin with. Still interested in knowing the frequency though. -- Jao (talk) 10:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Openness 

message: The ACBL no longer bans relay systems as such. Source: https://web2.acbl.org/documentLibrary/about/Convention-Charts.pdf 2603:7080:9800:5D71:15F4:DDA5:3C95:760C (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  ACBL and relay systems
Talk:Collective responsibility

message: Do we really need that section on how libertarians view the subject? Why do only libertarians have a section on it? And it's largely uncited. I think it should be removed. watermark0n (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libertarian section 

message: Collective responsibility is often associated with multilateralism in foreign policy, as for example in this recent speech by Kofi Annan.  This article would benefit from some discussion of the application of the concept of collective responsibility to the acts of nations.  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collective responsibility in international relations 

message: The text sofar is a horrible mixture of the ideas of responsibility, guilt and punishment.
Responsibility is an ethical term, whereas guilt is a legalistic concept.
One can be responsible for some action, and not guilty.
Think of a five year old child setting a house on fire: the child is guilty, and the parents are responsible.
Also such actions by a mentally disabled person show this clearly.
Punishment is even one step further: the guilty need not always be punished and the punished are now always guilty. 
The text in the wikipedia should be scrapped.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.83.4.26 (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  responsibility versus guilt 

message: Not clear what this is actually trying to say: "This proved the old libel that non-jews, romans, were responsible for his death was incorrectly blamed on non-jews". Sounds like it's trying to justify persecution and, either way, is written terribly. 192.197.178.2 (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erased confusing sentence 

message: The premise or limitation in the lead "Collective responsibility also known as collective guilt is a concept in which individuals are responsible for other people's actions by tolerating, ignoring, or harboring them, without actively collaborating in these actions." seems far too limited. "Collective responsibility" is directed at more than just those who tolerate, ignore, or harbor wrong-doers, but also tends to be used against families, organizations, members of certain national, religious, political, ethnic, or other groups for acts done either by a member of such a group or by someone seeming to further an interest of such group. See the German-language Wiki article for a much expanded concept closer to how this term is used in the real world. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed 

message: I cannot move it because I am not an admin. Infinitepeace (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: This article needs to be moved to collective guilt, which is the more common name 

message: This article is currently a weird hodgepodge of disparate topics but see the Wikidata entry for links to encyclopedias with dedicated articles on the combined concept. (not watching, please ) czar 01:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope
Talk:Trump coup

message: Please add:  :Donald Trump and :Mitch McConnell to the "See Also" section.  Thank you! YoNibbet (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: This is an article on bridge. Schazjmd (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2020 

message: I would like to add a new section discussing the events following the 2020 U.S. Presidential election that is totally separate from the bridge term Trump coup.  Thank you! YoNibbet (talk) 23:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: This is not the article for that content. Schazjmd (talk) 23:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

text: I understand that you are proposing content that is not about bridge, . This is an article about bridge. This article has nothing to do with the presidential election, and "see also" links that pertain to the election are not relevant on this article. Schazjmd (talk) 00:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

text: I've reverted your addition because Trump coup has nothing to do with the subject. Praxidicae (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2020 (2)
Talk:Signal (bridge)

message: FT2, I reverted your article move. First, WP:NAME states that (emphasis mine):
:Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.
Discard is the term for throwing a card in a non-trump suit other than the one led. When the discard is also assigned a specific meaning by the partnership, it becomes a signal as well. Thus, there's no need to emphasize "discard" in the title, as the article is devoted to meaning of the defenders' cards played—IOW, the signals, as the simple title reads. Duja► 09:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title