lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Wikipedia talk:Illustrating a point

message: I think insulting people to demonstrate how unproductive it is to insult people is unproductive. Even if it doesn't backfire, you're assuming a person who has no problem being uncivil will have the inclination to do analogies. But analogies ("do not do unto others...") are usually the last thing on the minds of people who think they are "entitled to their opinion". Worst-case scenario: they see what you're doing and reply with a snarky "you're entitled to your opinion". Good luck going from there. 
I prefer vigorous distraction: whenever the personal attacks start, bring up the thing that's actually under discussion and force people to talk about what's really bothering them. NameTheConflict. And remind them at every step of the way that no matter how much of a retard they think the other side is, calling them that isn't going to make it all go away. JRM · Talk 13:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Specifically, I'd say that engaging in personal attacks to demonstrate how unproductive it is to engage in personal attacks is a perfect example of WP:POINT. You'd be doing exactly what that guideline tells you not to do: breaking the rules in order to make a point. Telling people to do it here appears to be the exact opposite of what we're telling them on POINT. Anyway, whether or not you'd be breaking POINT, you'd still be breaking WP:NPA, so I can't see how we can recommend it as a course of action. — Asbestos | Talk 16:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

message: I'm not quite sure I get the latter two examples on the page. The first, the original example, is that of using the preview function. But how does using it illustrate a point? If users are supposed to look at your edit history, see that all your edits are perfect first time, conclude that you always use the preview function, and then vow to use the edit function from then on, I guess something has been achieved, but it sounds like a rather unlikely and round-about route. I really don't think my using the preview function encourages anyone else to do the same. The Mother Goose is also not clear. How is it supposed to be used to illustrate a point? I guess we could have a link to the diffs of some pages in one of the Wikipedia introductory pages, explaining how articles get created, but I'm not sure what users would learn.
I'm sure that there are plenty of examples that would illustrate a "lead by example" philosophy (if that's what you're aiming for), such as removing one's own personal attacks instead of just asking other to remove theirs, but the current examples seem a little incoherent. — Asbestos | Talk 16:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples
Talk:Yellow Peril

message: The entire "sublimated antisemitism" section feels off-topic for this article. The only connection it makes is that both von Ehrenfels and the Freikorps used water metaphors to describe Asians and Jews/Communists respectively, which is a very tenuous connection to make, since using drowning as a metaphor is fairly common and not very notable. The speculation about sexuality and masculinity also comes across as armchair psychology, and the whole thing about the Freikorps wanting to prove themselves as "hard men" against Jews and Communists has absolutely nothing to do with the Yellow Peril. It seems like someone just really wanted to talk about this book, rather than a genuine attempt to add to the article. 2A02:C7C:C8FF:6300:95B8:3F57:E7F1:DADD (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and deleted this very weak speculative section that has not gained support from other reliable sources. A "flood" of trouble is a too common a metaphor to support this speculation.  Rjensen (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sublimated Antisemitism" seems off topic
Talk:Field Order Number 15

message: The article is misnamed ("Special Field Order") and there is already a fairly complete article on 40 acres and a mule which is the term for Special Field Order Number 15. --Kmorrow 13:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a reasonable title for a redirect to me. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Talk:SC Heerenveen

message: doesn't american Robbie Rogers play for this team? 207.29.128.130 17:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He does, but he doesn't have a squad number yet. Click here for his profile. SportsAddicted 20:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robbie Rogers 

message: The redirect 2023–24 SC Heerenveen season has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Steel1943 (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:2023–24 SC Heerenveen season]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Thrackan Sal-Solo

message: Isn't his name Thrackan Sal-Solo not Thracken Sal-Solo?
:Yep. Moving now. --Maru 02:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: This article just isn't written in a very encyclopedic manner. Having not read the Corellian trilogy and not being an expert on Thrackan, I can't exactly do the re-write myself but will be glad to help. But the information could be summed up and presented much better, and I believe augmented by someone who has a little more knowledge in the Sal-Solo area. Also needs some more recent history added in from the Second Corellian insurection, which I may be able to get to after re-familiarizing myself but maybe someone can beat me to it.
71.2.144.120 03:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: This is mostly in-universe plot summary, with no citations to third-party sources to establish notability. I am redirecting this to List of Star Wars characters. Please feel free to add there any sort of that real-world/development stuff, but only if cited to sources. --EEMIV (talk) 15:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect
Talk:Gutter Ballet

message: It lists Clay Melton as one of the professional reviews. This is a completely biased review as it was commissioned by the band and featured on the band's official website, let alone uses insider knowledge to paint a picture of the album. This review does not follow wikipedia's guide for reviews re: it's not unbiased or by a source independent of the artist. Further, even if it is an independent review, the band has chosen to list only this reviewer on their website as the "official band review", versus the common approach of a page of all reviews and press, good and bad.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.113.160 (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  non-professional biased review
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Media

message: Hello everyone! I would like your input on a discussion at Talk:Criticism of the Walt Disney Company#Splitting off content to Criticism of Walt Disney Animation Studios about whether to split off content from five sub-sections about Walt Disney Animation Studios to the Criticism of Walt Disney Animation Studios, in order to ensure that the page complies with WP:SIZESPLIT. Consensus in this discussion is important to determine whether such a this split is warranted or not. Thanks and I hope to see your comments. Historyday01 (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Eladio Carrión ft. Bad Bunny - Kemba Walker (Audio Oficial) 186.7.184.212 (talk) 01:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed split of [[Criticism of the Walt Disney Company]] page 

message: Bad Bunny 186.7.184.212 (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Bunny ft. CHENCHO CORLEONE (Video Musical)
Talk:Penultima

message: Would be nice to have a sample game here. From just game rules it is not yet clear what kind of rules Spectators can think of and how Players can deduce them. Are any other websites which describe the game? Andreas Kaufmann 14:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the (unintended) interaction between the pieces that makes the game interesting.  I haven't played the for 5 years, so can't comment with up-to-date examples.  However, one (fairly complex) rule might be that the "Knight" is known as the "Waltzer".  It has two ways of moving - it either moves in the direction it is pointing (in which case the entire 3x3 square centred on the piece moves), or it can rotate 90 degrees (in which case the 3x3 square also rotates).  When moving forward it captures any pieces that are "squashed" by pieces in the 3x3 square (though not by empty portions of the 3x3 square).  Pieces that are pushed off the edge of the board are removed from play (unless contradicted by other rules). Bluap 09:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example 

message: I have removed the following etymology, as being irrelevant in an encyclopedia
The word penultima is derived from the Latin words paene (meaning "almost") and ultima (meaning "last").  The adjective penultimate is usually employed in reference to items that are next to the last in sequence, such as is the case with scansion of syllables in Latin poetry, where the second to the last syllable of a word often receives greater stress and duration than the other syllables do.  Compare antepenultimate.
:What a remarkably and strangely pointless removal. If poetic stress isn't an encyclopedic topic, then poetry itself must not be either; you should go nominate poetry for deletion at AfD. -Silence 19:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: I learned this game from Michael Greene when he was doing his PhD at Warwick.  For my final year CS project I designed a programming language in which rules could be expressed.  It was a little limited, but still quite fun.  It didn't support "invoke" commands because I'd never heard of them until I read the article, and can only support pieces that work on the squares of the existing board without requiring additional counters, etc.
I'll see if I can dust it off and put a link up to it.  It might help people who don't understand to get an idea of what the article's talking about. JulesH 08:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reminds me...
Talk:Sterling Professor

message: As of the present time, the names presented in the final paragraph does not match the list of "Current Sterling Professors"; Benoit Mandelbrot, for example, appears in the former but not in the latter.-Ashley Pomeroy 15:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: I've attempted to catalog all past and present Sterling Professors and entable them. This also improve the referencing issues with the article. A small number of deceased professors may be missing, and I am still looking for authoritative references for several. I could also use help elaborating on "notability" for many entries. Nickknack00 (talk) 02:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of Sterling Professors
Talk:Race Across America

message: Introduction, paragraph referring to Tour de France:
"... making it a transcontinental event.": doesn't appear to be a sober factual statement in a serious comparison. The "Tour" also links two ends of a continent, technically. If the juxtaposition refers to the distance, that's already been mentioned.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levi B. Than (talk • contribs) 16:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison

message: John Howard, the Prime Minister of Australia, is linked as the 2nd winner of 1982 of the Race Across America. Somehow I doubt that this is true. He sure doesn't look like a marathon cyclist, but you never know.
:I noticed that as well... maybe it was some one with the identical name? 202.51.31.190  —The preceding  signed but undated. 
::John Howard (cyclist is now the John Howard in the article. Someone else fixed it. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Really true?

message: Currently Lon Haldeman does not exist.  Does anyone have enough verified information to start a page?--SportWagon 17:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enough Biography Data for Lon Haldeman article? 

message: I think that Enduro Class winners should not be included in the main table of overall winners. There is only one true winner of the RAAM and that's Traditional class winner. There are many other classes every year and I don't see any reason, why Enduro winners should be more important than Teams, 50+ years, Women or any other. They are all clearly inferior to Traditional class anyway.
Take RAAM 2007 for instance, after 3 days of riding... Only 1 (one!) cyclist started (!) the race in Enduro Class. How can anyone say that he should be in the main table with all legends? That's an insult for all of them. After all, let's compare this one and only "competitor" with "tradionalists", 24 of them. Only one of the 24 competitors in traditional class is slower overall than the Enduro champ. That's to be expected, you say, the Enduro class requests 8 hours of sleep, they have higher average speed... No, they don't. This Enduro RAAM 07 champ has currently slower average speed than 9 fastest competitors in Traditional Class. This guy has nothing to do in a table with all real RAAM champs...--JTrdi 17:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Enduro Winners

message: I'm not currently very active at wikipedia. so wouldn't have time to followup on possible repercussions of trying to fix the problem I observe/perceive.
It would seem to me that RAAM should be a disambiguation page, with the current redirect to Global_Country_of_World_Peace#Currency as one of two initial alternatives.--The other initial alternative, of course, being Race Across America.
--SportWagon (talk) 22:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  RAAM currently redirects somewhere else, not here
Talk:Victor Perlo

message: In the off chance that a relative of Victor Perlo finds this page, please do not hesitate to write if you happen to have additional information, family photos, etc. which may be placed into the public record. Thanks! —Tim Davenport, Early American Marxism website, Corvallis, OR  MutantPop@aol.com Carrite (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Note to relatives

message: While I can readily appreciate this article has been kicked about by various POV sides, the encyclopedic way out is for each to cite their sources and let the readers decide. The unsourced article as it stands is not a useful tool for a serious researcher, being entirely unsourced. You all are aware that original research doesn't belong here, yes? User:scbomber 19:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Carrite (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced!

message: This article has him marrying two women both surnamed "Perlo." Cousins? Sisters? Come on, what sort of sources fail to give maiden names? At least the writer(s) didn't allude to his (highly probable) semitic roots. Oversight?  Captqrunch (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Carrite (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Incest!

message: As of the edit of December 8, 2010, here is how Russian Wikipedia treats the allegations of Perlo's espionage activity: "Обвинялся в шпионаже в пользу СССР, но обвинения отрицал." (Accused of spying for the Soviet Union, but denied the accusations.) That's it... Carrite (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: By way of comparison
Talk:Sharif of Mecca

message: Anonymous #82.35.34.11 reverted my edit a few days ago with the edit summary: the "clarification" in the previous edit was patently wrong. That's fine, but I'd like a little more information on why it was patently wrong. The bulk of the edit was that Hussein bin Ali was not the last Sharif of Mecca, but rather his son Ali was. My sources are:  , , and . Also Britannica and the Jordanian government that Ali was King of Hejaz. The rest of my edit I don't think is controversial. - Nat Krause 15:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, there's a problem. I don't think you mean to say that the Saudis conquered Mecca in 2005. Zora 20:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so either; since no one else corrected it, I made the change to 1924, although the ibn Saud article seems to say the year should be 1925.  Whoever knows best, please correct.  TresÁrboles 05:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Patently wrong

message: from Sharif of Mecca to Sharif of Hejaz , does anyone agree ? Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 13:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the move is done, but I think it's a bad idea. Applying the Google test, there's less than 5 hits for the current title, while there is more than 13.000 for the previous one (search term; "Sharif of [name]" -wikipedia) I suggest to move it back. -- Steve Hart 22:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But Generalization is much better for discribtion. i mean , when you say "Sharif of Mecca" the readers will think he is the governer of Mecca only , while in fact the Sharif is the governer of Hejaz. Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 12:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, Ammar.  It's true that the Sharifs of Mecca ruled most of Hejaz (and sometimes areas outside the Hejaz as well), but they're most widely known as the "Sharifs of Mecca".  It will be explained in the article that the Sharifs governed a large area and not only the city of Mecca, so there shouldn't be any confusion.  It's like the "Emperor of Rome" or the "Kingdom of Jersalem" or the "Ottoman governor of Baghdad"; all these titles are derived from the names of capital cities even though they refer to larger areas.  Slacker 12:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you right :) Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 02:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename the article

message: Hawashim are also included under the larger clan of Banu Hashim Ali1407 (talk) 11:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hawashim
Talk:Fentynyl

message: This article is incorrectly titled, "Fentynyl" (with a "y") is actually "Fentanyl" (with an "a"), which has its own article, containing the information cut-and-pasted into this article as well as a great deal else. I'm converting this to a redirect, given that "fentynyl" could be considered a common misspelling, and since there's no conflict with any other thing in the world really named "fentynyl". --Tarnas 16:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Misspelled article name
Talk:Sensation (psychology)

message: I placed a merge tag on this article since it seems to be referring to the same concepts that Sensation is.  —Wknight94 (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I created this article anew because the psychology information was all but removed from the Sensation article, and it instead talks about sensation as a fiction writing technique. I don't think that there is, currently, a psychology article on sensation.  The psychology info was purportedly moved into the Sense article, which is about sensation from a physiological perspective. As far as I'm concerned, it's all a big mess, and the change I made isn't the best one.  But this isn't my field, so I'm not qualified to say where the line is between physiological and psychological sensation, or between sensation and perception. ThreeOfCups (talk) 23:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge to Sensation

message: I propose merge to Sensory system. See talk page there for discussion: Talk:Sensory_system#Merge_from_Sensation_.28psychology.29. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge to Sensory system

message: This doesn't read like a psychology article to me, and the "These topics are considered part of psychology, and not anatomy or physiology, because processes in the brain so greatly affect the perception of a stimulus" line just sounds ridiculous. With that reasoning, any anatomy article can be categorized as a psychology article.
This article is filled with exact anatomical and physiological explanations for biological sensation and doesn't discuss the psychological impact of sensation at all. This article should be talking about the psychological and cultural impacts of sensation, tying in specific disorders, drug use, and the history of the psychological study of sensation. This article does none of these things.
Most of the information in this article needs to be merged with Sensory system and this needs to be entirely rewritten.
--Iamozy (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has a section on loss of sensation which is fine, but nothing on sensation itself.  There should be sections on how each of the 5 senses work.  This should actually be easy to do by just following along through an introduction to psychology textbook.  Unfortunately it would probably take some time investment and that I don't have.  But if someone wanted to take a crack at it, I could look it over.  StoneProphet11 (talk) 12:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made edits to this page that are more line with an introductory psychology explanation of sensation. I have not made any changes to the "loss of sensation" section considering the previous comment said it was "fine" Bmesri (talk) 08:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  This psychology article needs help
Talk:Memory-mapped I/O and port-mapped I/O

message: As I understand it, in common architectures, ROM needs to be at $0000-$00FF for some 8-bit microprocessors and $FF00-$FFFF for others to allow the processor to see the reset vector. I'll swap the addresses of I/O and ROM for the example. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 03:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Placement of ROM in the example 

message: Definately a bad title, but great content. I like the way this articles attempts to compare two distincts architectural choices. This is the way, that more articles should choose.
Some propositions, off the top of my head: I/O mechanism or I/O device addressing or I/O mapping. Sources needed.
Off-topic WP:OR remark: Also, come to think of it, memory-mapped I/O formally re-defines primary storage (aka main memory) in a very interesting way. Traditionally, primary storage is defined as the one that is directly addressable via CPU. What if... What if there are some registers in a sound card? Do they become my primary storage, too? Obviously, to a program they cannot be easily distinguished from memory locations. To go further... What if I would make a hard drive with entire capacity linearly memory-mapped? The idea of file system suddenly becomes somewhat less useful, since I have uniform pointers-to-RAM and pointers-to-disk now, doesn't it?
--Kubanczyk 00:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: "In x86 architecture, an input/output base address is a base address used for an I/O port."
Does that mean that those addresses that you used to set by hand (0x220 for Sound Blasters for example) are port I/O addresses and not memory-mapped I/O? How does one determine which type of I/O is used? Is it determined by the hardware designer? Can both be used at the same time by the same device to access the same registers? Also, since 32-bit x86 processors have 4GB of address space, does using memory-mapping and 4GB of RAM make some of the RAM inaccessible? Is video RAM memory-mapped? If so, is it also incompatible with 4GB of physical RAM on 32-bit CPUs?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Totsugeki (talk • contribs) 21:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I stumbled upon an answer to my second set of questions in the conventional memory article, in case anyone else is interested.Totsugeki (talk) 13:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Questions 

message: It is stated that an interrupt can only have the values 0 and 1. What about MSI(-X)?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.252.208 (talk) 03:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interrupts 

message: Please split this article between memory-mapped and port-mapped IO.
: Or change the title to reflect both IO methods? 104.228.101.152 (talk) 00:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split