lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Stephen Ward (footballer)

message: At present, Stephen Ward's height is cited to the FPA Handbook. This is different from other sources, which vary from 1.78m to 1.85m (5ft 10in to 6ft 1in), depending on which source you look at.
I propose citing his height from either the Premier League  or the Irish National team (1.8m or 180cm) and switching the display to metres first for the following reasons:
* It would then be consistent with the usage of Premier League or the Irish National team.
* It would then be consistent with the usage of the Irish Republic, which uses the metric system more consistently than the UK. (Stephen Ward is from the Irish Republic.)
Are there any comments or concerns? Michael Glass (talk) 11:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need to change it as the height was wrong and I've corrected it. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The data is still inconsistent with usage in the Irish Republic. Other editors might like to comment on this. Michael Glass (talk) 03:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Height Data 
Talk:Priority draft pick

message: Current articles refers to clubs winning 20.5 and 16.5 premiership points, which is not possible. Five and a half (ie one drawn result) wins equal 22 points, four and a half is 18 points. 
I think it is more import to place real or actual premiership point values rather than mixing non existent decimals.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.34.63.1 (talk) 01:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Rotunda of Mosta

message: This article clains that the dome is 37 m across. The list of famous domes on this website says that it is 45m across. Also another article titled 'George Gronget', about the architect, claims that it is 40m across. Can somebody please find the measurement and correct these articles.
: references added. Interior diam of 37 m and wall thickness of 9 m makes an external diameter of 54 m. Thanks for pointing out inconsistencies. Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 18:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled
Talk:Evol Intent

message: I'm just plain puzzled.. and I thought Evol Intent was darkstep not hardstep.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.133.201 (talk) 15:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: IDM?
Talk:Donald Rusk Currey

message: Any mention of California is wrong here. Wheeler peak Currey was working on is in Nevada, on the border with Utah.
There IS NO Wheeler peak in California at all. You can check on Google maps if you want.
I mean, several of the links in the page show that it is in Nevada:
1. Snake Range 
2. Wheeler Peak 
3. Lehman Caves National Monument 
4. Great Basin National Park 
5. Methuselah tree 
Even the reference material, the book Currey HIMSELF published is named "An Ancient Bristlecone Pine Stand in Eastern Nevada"
I think the confusion stems from this: 
White Pine County - where the trees actually are in Nevada
White Mountains - A range in California that also has White in the name and type of tree Currey fell also grows in California.
I don't know anything about what's written in the "Aftermath" section, but I think it probably is a mistake as well:
"In the article, Currey indicates that he sectioned the tree as much from the question of whether the oldest bristlecones were necessarily confined to California's White Mountains (as some dendrochronologists had been claiming) as from its usefulness in regard to studies of the Little Ice Age."
— Preceding unsigned comment added by  5.29.97.151 (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I rewrote the section to make it clear that the incident took place in eastern Nevada rather than California. I do not think that it is necessary to eliminate all mention of California since the range of the species in question extends from eastern California through Nevada and well into Utah. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page has factual mistakes that are easy to spot. Can somebody (who knows how) fix it?
Talk:ProStores

message: A.B. by editing the page you removed accurate data that helped balance the article. In justifying your edit you violated the following policy:
"Self-published sources may be used only in very limited circumstances; see above. When removing or challenging a reference to a self-published source, it is best to explain how it is being used inappropriately, rather than simply point out that the source is self-published."
The sources referenced were all verified ProStore account holders (store owners.) If these sources can not be used to create an accurate picture of ProStores, then this article will continue to be yet another corporate advertisement. Considering you based you edit solely on the type of source, and not the information provided, I am requesting you reverse your edit. 10:34 September 16, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cymbrie (talk • contribs) 15:35, 16 September 2008
:OK, here's more detail: We have no way of verifying whether folks posting on discussionboard.prostores.com are who they say they are nor do we know if they are telling the truth. Furthermore, the roninkatana.com site you linked to appears to be your personal web site and you are never supposed to link to your own site. So this material can't go into the article. As I explained previously on your user talk page, if you have a different supporting reference that's been published with editorial oversight and fact-checking such as a news article, then by all means the material can be reinserted. See "What Wikipedia is Not": among other things, we're not a soapbox or a forum. 
:As for the tone of the article; I agree that it reads like an advert written by an employee, which is why I tagged it advert and conflict of interest with notices. I welcome someone re-writing it in a neutral tone using reliable sources. --A. B. (talk •  contribs)  21:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reported server problems
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/George Vithoulkas (2nd nomination)

message: :Please note that the speedy closing was improperly done because the material in question was not, in fact, a copyright violation. What the writer above describes as a "puppet parade" was, in my opinion, simply people who know about Vithoulkas being justifiably concerned at the idea that he is somehow not notable enough for Wikipedia. See my posting below for an incomplete summary of the case for his notability. --Lee Hunter 17:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was at the time of deletion. Vithoulkas changed his copyright terms afterwards. Adam Cuerden talk 17:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now you're changing your story. Your supposed copyright violation linked to the Right Livelihood Award page, not Vithoukas' home page. As I pointed out to you before, the identical content appears all over the Internet because it's just his official CV, in other words, something that's not generally considered to be a copyright because it's just a basic list of the facts of his life as he has compiled and distributed it (whether it needed editing is another issue). --Lee Hunter 18:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not changing my story: It may have been all over the internet, (including the Right Livelihood Award site) but it wasn't free for us to use until Vithoulkas made it so. Will you please stop your personal attacks on me? Adam Cuerden talk 18:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pointing out (correctly) that you've changed your story is not a personal attack. A CV distributed for publication is by its very nature not copyright information. The notion makes no sense. --Lee Hunter 19:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been pointed out to me that the text existed in more than one place. How is acknowledging that changing my story? It was still at the Right Livelihood award site, and just distributing something as a press release doesn't make it copyright free, so it was copyrighted until Vithoulkas waived his copyright.  Adam Cuerden talk 19:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

message: This request has been raised on the article talk page by Maria Chorianopoulou, PhD, Assistant to Professor George Vithoulkas, maria@vithoulkas.com213.5.45.122 19:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe th e general rule is that they don't get to say whether we can talk about them,  provided they are in the news already. Adam Cuerden talk 20:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They can contact the Office here (and are encouraged to do so). Beyond that, provided we're observing WP:BLP, discussion and editing can continue unless we hear otherwise. MastCell Talk 21:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks all, MidgleyDJ gave her that link on the article talk page and as well as requesting immediate deletion she's said she "will also inform the central office of wikipedia". It comes back down to reliable secondary sources, and we seem to be getting a lot of mirrors or near mirrors of the CV on Vithoulkas's website. dave souza, talk 22:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for deletion from IP address
Talk:Alan Gould

message: I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates and tables for short stories, poems and/or book reviews. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. Feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 06:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography 
Talk:Polynomial expansion

message: The coeffecients of all the terms are highly dependent on the appropriate line of pascal's triangle. This should be included in the article. 202.168.18.88 02:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pascals Triangle 

message: I'm not a native English speaker and unsure about this. But I think the terms degree and power are used as follows…
* x has degree y; x is of degree y
* x is raised to the power of y
…while the article mixes both formulations:
* variables raised to different degrees
Could someone please rephrase the article in case I'm right here? Thank you. — Ocolon 18:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using the terms degree, power
Talk:Palakollu

message: : names like Palacole/Palakollu/Palaokol are mentioned on its official municipality website, with Palacole being used more than once and even census at  shows it as Palacole. Can you please check these sites . --IM3847 (talk) 10:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palakollu, Palacole, Palakol 

message: Census of India officially classifies "Palacole" as Class II (Town), Palakollu also does not feature in the "Cities having population 1 lakh and above, Census 2011"
I edited it as a town in the introduction and settlement type. But in the article, the term city is used liberally (read Palakollu City) in several occasions. Please cite any WP:RS before reverting my edit. Ab207 (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palakollu is a "town", Not city 

message: The editor Deesalamma has left me no potion but to open a POV discussion. Refusing to engage in any meaningful debate on talk page and hell bent on calling this human settlement a city. Except for a few local newspapers, we are yet to see any official data that confirms the same. Without which calling this human geographic settlement a city is simply POV pushing which violates WP:NPOV.--Ab207 (talk) 11:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV issues
Talk:Raging Grannies

message: Article is probably fine now with one image, but here's another if needed: :commons:Image:19 Mar 2007 Seattle Demo 37.jpg (Seattle Raging Grannies demonstrate, in the rain). - Jmabel | Talk 18:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another image

message: The film that was referenced in the article is about a group of 
Israelian women fighting for the rights of palestenians. As far as
I know, they are not related to the American/Canadian group.
I suspect the link to the Hebrew wikipedia page may also lead to
the wrong activist group. Unfortunately I cannot read any Hebrew.
19:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film reference 

message: Wasn't there a chapter of Raging Grannies who protested in the capital city of New Brunswick because the mayor didn't let gays and lesbians organize a parade?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.222.73 (talk) 12:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gay/Lesbian Rights?
Talk:Chinatown Film Festival

message: Hi, i'm the author of this page, Simone Tarantino, author as well of the websites www.chinatownfilmfestival.com and www.cff2008.org.
I'm authorized (in written) by the board of the Chinatown Film Festival Inc. to republish and eventually modify the content of the wensite.
I'm new in the wikipedia world, so please tell me what i have to add to the article to meet all the requirements.
Simone Tarantino
::Third party sources, references to newspaper or magazine articles talking about the festival. I think the festival is notable, so I have temporarily removed the deletion tag to give you a day or two to do so. Web sites are OK, if they are genuine 3rd party sites, and NOT BLOGS. Technically, any language will do, but in practice have at least 2 in English
::and a proper copyright notice, which must say that you are releasing it according to GFDL. -- be sure you want to do it--it  is irrevocable, and means that anyone may reuse or modify the material, even for commercial use.  (the notice you have written is not quite enough--the GFDL license permits its use not just in WP, but anywhere.DGG 20:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hi
Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Darwinek 2

message: :What else to say? If whitewashing the ethincity of many people is a "content dispute", then calling African Americans "niggers", "porch monkeys" etc. (kind of vandalism I frequently revert) is a content dispute, too. :( 
Are you saying that changing the description of a footballer from "professional Hungarian footballer from Slovakia" to "professional slovak footballer" is the equivalent of calling a black person a "porch monkey?" Thatcher131 18:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. As as I said before, you don't live in Central Europe and you will never understand that. - Darwinek 20:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I for one live quite close enough to Central Europe, I believe, and I've certainly had enough experience with national and ethnic minority issues between Wikipedia editors with diverging nationalist viewpoints, to understand this issue. And I still say that I find this attitude in an administrator quite inappropriate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Darwinek's response re:Mt7 

message: I don't know if I can endorse Piotrus' view since I signed as a certifying editor, but I would like to say that I agree with nearly everything he says.  Mt7 is not a great editor (in fact, I blocked him myself); Darwinek should ask for assistance, and if he apologized and promised to be more careful that would have been enough.  However, looking at his response on the main page and here it seems like he has decided he did nothing wrong.  I don't see that letting this run is likely to change his mind, which is why I posted the case at RFAR.   Assuming Mt7's translation of Darwinek's Czech-language comment is accurate, Darwinek called him a "Slovak racist" and then said he could tell that Gogh was Hungarian by looking at him, all without a hint of irony or self-awareness.  That's not good in an admin who also edit wars and issues blocks in nationalistic and ethnic disputes where he is passionately on one side of the issue.  In other words, because of Darwinek's nationalistic and ethnic passions (see his comment about "porch monkeys" above), he should not take any admin actions on such articles.  Yet, he refuses to see this as a problem.  Do you really think he will change his mind if this runs longer? Thatcher131 01:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no point in letting it run as it seams ArbCom have accepted it - what ever they say we must agree on so this Rfc is pointless now Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 01:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Piotrus view
Talk:Joshua Perper

message: This article is quite biased and full of incorrect info (Perper did not lose to Wecht, he had moved two years prior to Wecht's re-election).
I find this quote out of place. First it came from a source with strong opinion, second it does nto question the work of Dr. Perper (he had said the man died of heatstroke) and third it is coming from a legal office, not a medical office.    Dr. Perper has been criticized for appearing to come to the conclusion that Ephedra was a primary factor in the death of Steve Bechler. According to Shane Freedman, legal officer for Cytodyne Technologies, the maker of Xenadrine RFA-1: The fact that the medical examiner found traces of ephedra in Mr. Bechler's system does not mean that Mr. Bechler died from ephedra, He died from heatstroke.  I would like opinions on removing this quote?
The next quote in Controversal simply links to a blog.  Removing for that reason.
--DizFreak  talk Contributions 18:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perper went beyond the autopsy and interviewed Bechler's family. He found that Bechler was overweight, out of shape, had not yet accustomed to the warm, humid weather in South Florida, was on a diet primarily liquid or semi-liquid, didn't feel well or eat the night before he collapsed and had high blood pressure and abnormal liver functions. This is not going beyond the autopsy. This is fairly standard for a coronor when they need to find out as much as they can about a death. I am substituting "Perper went beyond the autopsy and" to "During the investigation he"--DizFreak  talk Contributions 18:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I hear the question quite a bit whenever he is being interviewed, I don't like Trivia sections and it doesn't fit in the professional section, but I would like to see it in here as well.--DizFreak  talk Contributions 05:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased and incorrect information
Talk:Oregon State University Press

message: Hey, I noticed that this didn't have your template which was 100% inconsistent with the other pages so I fixed it.  I've been working on the OSU Radiation Center and I was wondering, is it better to prefix these with "Oregon State" or "OSU".  Consistency is your friend.  theanphibian 02:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably Oregon State University to avoid confusion, since there are several other OSU's (Ohio State, Oklahoma State). VegaDark 03:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Template

message: Just a heads up to anyone connected with the OSU Press--please check out our conflict of interest guidlines and be sure to remember that Wikipedia is not here to help you promote your press. Thanks and happy printing! Katr67 17:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflict of interest
Talk:Mykita

message: Not entirely sure whether this company meets WP:CORP criteria. The media coverage is only passing (there is more substantive coverage in some foreign language publications, which I'll try to track down and cite), but I'm inclined to believe the two design awards tip the balance in favor of inclusion. --Muchness 18:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:CORP
Category talk:User block templates

message: I removed all of the custom templates and working templates in User: space from this category.  Please discuss at Category talk:User warning templates#Removed user pages from category before readding any userspace templates to this category. —Doug Bell talk 18:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed user pages from category 

message: Is the Checkuserblock-Synetrix tag still in use?  It seems to have been created in response to a particular incident last year. Throwaway85 (talk) 14:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obsolete tag? 

message: Should all user block-related templates be placed in :Category:User block templates, or only those which aren't in :Category:User indefinitely blocked templates? :Category:User indefinitely blocked templates is the only subcategory at the moment. —⁠andrybak (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:User block templates]] vs [[:Category:User indefinitely blocked templates]]
Talk:Another Gospel

message: Several "Books critical of ..." categories were recently [ removed] from this article.  The edit summary referred to "categories removed which are not the main notability of the book, per WP policies on categories, as article says the main point of the book is to show the superiority of fundamental Christian beliefs, not criticize others".
I'm not at all convinced by this reasoning.  Quite the contrary, it seems to me that criticism of the categorized groups (Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, Scientology, and the Unification Church) is central to the purpose of the Another Gospel book.  The book contains individual chapters on these groups (32, 44, 20, and 22 pages, respectively), as well as several others.  And I don't really see much backing in the current text of the article to support the claim that the "article says the main point of the book is to show the superiority of fundamental Christian beliefs, not criticize others" — the book is clearly polemical in nature, a point which I think the article makes clear.
I've brought up the question of whether these categories belong at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Removal of polemical categories from two book articles, and I hope we can get some discussion and reach some sort of consensus on the issue.  — Richwales 01:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This quote from the book, featured in the current article: "every individual concerned about maintaining traditional Christian values should be apprehensive about the potential negative effect the New Age may have on the coming generations." Says that New Age systems are a new religion and that they are a threat to Christian values. That sounds like strong criticism to me. I think the categories that were removed should be re-added. -- — Keithbob • Talk •  19:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A discussion of this issue took place back in June, at the talk page of the Religion project.  That discussion has been archived, but it can be found here, and I'd recommend people go back and read it.  Aside from the question of possible overcategorization, a second question was raised — namely, whether the relevance of numerous polemical categories can be justified based on the actual contents of the book, or whether any categorization must be based solely on the basis of the text of the article (which, in turn, is limited by the paucity of secondary sources on this book).  — Richwales 21:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of polemical categories
Talk:List of Montreal Canadiens award winners

message: Some other players who were voted into the HHOF, who played at least one game for the Canadiens:
* Tommy Smith (ice hockey) - 1916-17
* Roy Worters - 1929-30
Smith played 14 games, Worter just one, on loan from the Americans. Would Tommy Smith be worth a mention? Alaney2k (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  hall of famers
Talk:Rosemanowes Quarry

message: Are people sure that the project stopped in 1980?  I was a summer student working at the project in 1989 and 1990.  I would have worked there in 1991 as well, but they were winding the project down then and didn't have the money for that kind of thing.  -- Jonhallett 18:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Found a reference to 1991, so you're cleary right. Perhaps it was just boreholes drilling that stopped in 1980? Have updated the article, but perhaps you can make it more specific or add detail? Gralo 16:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Project dates