lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Builders' rites

message: "The ordinary view that by such means particulars may be found of the event on the removal of the stone hereafter, may suffice as respects latter-day motives, but such memorials are deposited in the hope that they will never be disturbed, and so another reason must be found for such an ancient survival."
This has to be one of the most laboured sentences on wikipedia. terrible.
:It also makes an unwarranted assumption, that just because the builders hoped the building would never be torn down, that the objects could not have been placed to be discovered by people in the future. All buildings come down eventually, one way or another, so the idea that the builders wanted these objects to be found someday is reasonable.--RLent (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that sentence is awful. I'm not sure I even understand what it means.PurpleChez (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who wrote this? 

message: I note with an expression disgruntled that a certain writer chose to differ, obviously, Roman and non-Roman people as "savage and civilised cultures." I retained judgement however at first, believing that it followed on from the Grimms statement, but my rage returned to see that the quotes marks begged to differ. Surely new archaelogical evidence as well as the re-thinking of the Roman/Late Antiquity period would question such a remark as 'savage.' This does no good for the reputations of the Celtic, Slavic, Germanic and other's reputations.
:This article is basically lifted straight from the 1911 edition of Encyclopædia Britannica. I think it is in need of a complete rewrite. The article could use a more modern historical examination rather than relying on 19th century sources, as does the 1911 article. It doesn't mean that the 1911 article is necessarily wrong, but we need not take its assumptions as fact.--RLent (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Savagery and it's necessity? 

message: This section seems to be nonsense with no contemporary evidence.92.0.40.230 (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins? 

message: Holsworthy states the sacrifice was buried under the tower rather than the wall. Which is correct? Have archaeologists ever looked into this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 22:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  History
Talk:Montpelier High School, Bristol

message: Needs history, refs, photos...welcomeVictuallers 15:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Derek Kok

message: I think that the redirect/merge (Derek Kwok X Derek Kok) is wrong, because they are diffrent people - if I simplify it, the "director" zh:郭子健 and the "actor" zh:郭政鴻. This article is about the actor but because of the redirect, other English wiki articles mentioning the director link to this article. Please correct me, if I am wrong. WikiHannibal (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 different people
Talk:Pfetterhouse

message: In the "Naming" section, it says, "rocks from Pfetterhouse's career were used to build a Roman station." I don't know what "career" means in this context. I suspect it's a translation from either French or German and the wrong synonym has been chosen. Does anyone have any idea what was intended. Actually, some of the English in the article is a bit stilted, as if the whole thing is a translation. Hengistmate (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad translation?
Talk:Matthew (1497 ship)

message: The modern ship is not a replica because:
*There are no drawings of the original
*It is extremely unlikely that 15th century shipwrights could have created the highly curved stern.  Flat sterns were the norm for such boats. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What term would you suggest? The web site for the Matthew says it is a "faithful reproduction".— Rod talk 17:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Difficult, I am just raising the issue and will see what sources I can find. I have found this, which is about another "replica", constructed at Bonavista.  Jezhotwells (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Replica?

message: By the shape this Ship is not a Caravel of this time, the forecastle is too high. If this ship really looks like this and they have actual drawings from the time it was probably a Barinel. Sail plan looks like Caravela Redonda, but at this time Caravela Redonda was not an actual ship as it was made later, (later Caravela Redonda actually had a high forecastle), Caravelas Redondas from this period were just normal caravels with square rigged sails, they had not high forecastles. So, if this ship looked like this it was a Barinel, and if there is proof this is huge because until now there is little factual evidence of how Barinels actually looked like, only broad descriptions.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.108.238.214 (talk) 08:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  This ship is not a caravel.
Talk:St Mary Redcliffe

message: Take this incident what you will. Apisite (talk) 03:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Recent Development
Talk:Watershed, Bristol

message: Added inforbox, map box, broke up into sections, provided inline citations.  Hard to know how to provide any meaningful stats as none seem to be available. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  added sections, etc 

message: Has Listed building category, but if so, what grade?? Hugo999 (talk) 10:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Appears to be Grade II - or at least is was in 2000 (see IoE entry).— Rod talk 10:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Listed building
Talk:Carl Linnaeus the Younger

message: Why is this article called "Carolus Linnaeus the Younger" when his father's article is named "Carl Linnaeus" not "Carolus Linnaeus"? Surely it would be more logical and less confusing if they had the same first name since Carl the younger was named after Carl the older. How about naming this "Carl Linnaeus the Younger" instead? Most sources call him Carl and not Carolus by the way. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 15:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change to "Carl Linnaeus the Younger"?
Talk:Night World

message: Are the book summaries all reviews pulled from somewhere like Amazon?  I'm guessing that's not allowed, but I don't know for sure.  Just that they sound that way.
: I don't think that you should have written the summaries in the Amazon review forms. Wikipedia is all about (well I think that it was meant to be anyway) not being biased and random stuff, and a few of the summaries actually have the words 'I' and stuff. Just maybe change or delete a few sentences. Serpentine17ice 12:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

message: Types of mythological or fantastic beings in contemporary fiction is a page of, well, fantasy works (movie, TV, written, whatever) and the assorted mythological and/or fantastic critters they contain.  This series would qualify.  Anyone care to add it? Tamtrible (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone familiar with this series care to add it to this list? 

message: Per MOS:CHARACTERS, most articles about fiction do not need a character list, with important characters being introduced and discussed in the plot summaries. I'm happy to continue copy-editing these lists, but my instinct is to cut them entirely. Pinging the five most recent contributors: . Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Now done. If anyone wants to re-evaluate my removal, or pull something useful out of the removed content, the relevant diff is here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove the character lists?
Talk:The End's Not Near, It's Here

message: in past producers have given out false infomation so i deleated plot information posted. If any one thinks they have got plot details please discuss before adding as reliability of material is called into question thanks for help. P.S if they where the right plot details i apologize in advance. Kobol 20:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  plot detail 

message: please someone fix the plot because it looks like a thirteen year old wrote it, kthxbye.-24.92.43.153 04:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it has a few too many !!'s !!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.60.100 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: eww

message: I've tried to clean up much of the article as possible.  Used a more formal tone and tried to make it more objective.  I'll read it over again and try to clean it up more as I see fit.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.145.5 (talk • contribs) 06:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: good job—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.185.7 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  edit 

message: a brief flashback of Marissa from Premiere was seen near the end of this episode. Should Mischa be credited or not?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.114.169.67 (talk) 04:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Should [[Mischa Barton]] be credited or remain uncredited?
Talk:Pope Clement X

message: Moving the "dragged from his bed" part, it looks like vandalism/prankism.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.117.37.1 (talk) 23:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: It is saying in the article that Cardinal Altieri pointed out Cardinal Brancaccio as the man who should be elected (conclave of 1669-1670).  I am writing this because I have read that some sources say a veto was brought against Brancaccio and also against Cardinal Pietro Vidoni.  Anyway, Altieri, despite his protest about his own advanced age, accepted the election and took the Clement X.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.47 (talk) 21:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cardinal Brancaccio
File talk:P-38 Lightning head-on.jpg

message: The caption simply says it was taken on May 21.....but what year? ++ Arx Fortis 18:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the bottom of the page, it says "May 22nd, 2004", so I assume it was 2004. Jmlk17 04:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Date
Talk:.br

message: Just wanted to leave this in writing. Feel free to undo this, but make a proper page for Registro.br if you're going to that. User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 16:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Since I'm lazy, [[Registro.br]] redirects to [[.br]] 

message: The .BR ccTLD remains delegated to the Internet Steering Committee (CGI.BR).
NIC.br executes the orders given by CGI.BR.
Domain prices, rules, registration policies, budget, sponsorship, etc., are decided by CGI.BR, which forwards to NIC.BR to comply with such decisions. Taecyeon.kr (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  .BR remains delegated and managed by CGI.BR
Talk:Pope Leo XI

message: In 2006, it was stated that Leo XI had the nickname "Papa Lampo", but no sources prior to that claim have been identified.  A few more recent non-scholarly works have mentioned it, so avoid them as likely circular sourcing.Novangelis (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Further review indicates some hints that it predates Wikipedia. My Italian is not up to the task of translating this with sufficient certainty, especially to distinguish a popular nickname from an informal description in a recent book.Novangelis (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nickname 

message: This page states he was great-nephew to Leo X, but the list of popes page states he was nephew. Which is correct? SDSpivey (talk) 07:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship
Talk:Alpidem

message: not sure this isn't just me but this is the way the thumb looks:
Just wanted to save that for posterity as it appears the author has managed to fuse ununpentium, ununhexium and ununheptium to the carbon skeleton of an insomnia drug.
:The SVG bug was fixed a while ago. --Leyo 21:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  thumbnail
Talk:BN (biscuit)

message: Do these still exist?
Well considering they have a face one might conclude that they were living beings with minds and souls.  In the words of Descartes "I think therefore I am"
QED ya mam  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.230.10 (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question Existance 
Talk:The Long Tomorrow (novel)

message: There's something very strange in the plot summary.  It asserts (without source) that "...Clementine is revealed to be maliciously sentient, and has withheld the ultimate truth as to whether the nuclear forcefield was ever possible, rendering the work of Bartorstown through the ages obsolete and void."  I just read this novel, and...that didn't happen.  One drunkard scientist, upset after a previous failed experiment, goes into a paranoid rage where he imagines the machine is against him, but there is zero indication in the novel that is anything other than his delusion.
108.51.137.137 (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Canada Post stamp releases (2000–2004)

message: Perhaps this article should be split into seperate articles, one for each year. This article is becoming quite lengthy, and list like. Greenboxed 01:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, if this article were to be split, I think it would be a practical task to begin adding images of each stamp to the article. I think that would be a really nice touch and would let the article(s) stand out! Greenboxed 01:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Splitting the Article
Talk:Günter Hirsch

message: The german version of wikipedia have an article on Günter Hirsch, why shouldnt the english version have one ? --20:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, speedy tag removed. Conscious 21:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
File talk:E17-fetus.gif

message: * :Image:E17-fetus.gif - Image from http://www.brainmaps.org/ which is explicitly non-commercial as per http://brainmaps.org/index.php?p=termsofuse --Iamunknown 04:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This image has been released into the public domain.  I have obtained permissions from the creators to do so.  The 'terms of use' that you reference are valid in general, but exceptions can be made, as were made with the fetus image.  Hopefully the 'terms of use' page will be updated to made this clear.  Medlat 20:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then please forward both your request and the answer received to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org, preferably together as one message. Note that for images to be used by permission on Wikipedia, the copyright owner must know and agree to the conditions that the image may be redistributed, modified, and used for any other purpose including, but not limited to, commercial uses. --Iamunknown 21:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 'terms of use' page was subsequently updated to say that screenshots are public domain.  The fetus pic is a screenshot and hence is in the public domain. Medlat 22:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've updated the information and removed the template. --Iamunknown 23:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite the change in terms, this image is still not free.  The new terms just claim it is licensed under the Creative Commons license, but doesn't mention which CC license.  Not all CC licenses are considered free by WP.  Not to mention the WP description of the image in question still shows PD, not a CC license. —RP88 05:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: (reset tab) I know. I was talking with User:Medlat about how media hosted on Wikipedia needs to be freely licensed, and then he/she contacted the website and negotiated to release the pictures at http://brainmaps.org/index.php?p=screenshots into the public domain. I expressed concerns about the legal status of public domain and then they released under "CC" (except not a specific CC license). After that I gave up because I was afraid I had given legal advice where I am in no way qualified to give it. I don't know what to do now. --Iamunknown 06:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is free.  They are released under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License, which means the images may be freely modified and used commercially.  Medlat 16:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have updated the summary and license of both :Image:E17-fetus.gif and :Image:NeuronGolgi.png to reflect that they are licensed under cc-by-2.5.  Thank you very much Medlat, we appreciate your persistence and patience.  —RP88 19:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Again, thank you. I apologize for my inconsistencies. --Iamunknown 19:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Paul Roundhill

message: How is this guy a writer and artist? he doesnt have anything in print at all, let alone anything catologued in the British Library. Delete this article!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.5.238.163 (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: People are removing useful stuff like this: He also produced the music video for the top ten single, and Ivor Novello Award nominee, For Lovers, a collaboration between Doherty and the poet-songwriter Wolfman, whose career Roundhill manages jointly with Andy Lee.  Adding a citation needed tag is helpful, as it pinpoints where additions are needed.  Deleting highly relevant material about managing Wolfman is destructive of information.  OneVeryBadMan 22:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Writer

message: You only have to look at the Pete Doherty article to see dozens of examples of articles in very reliable, gold-standard sources, such as the BBC, the Guardian, the Independent, and the Times, which are just plain wrong.  For example, he was identified as an Oxford dropout in some, a UCL student in another, as someone who never attended university in others, and as a QMW dropout in others.  Many distinguished sources were wrong on easily verified facts.  Hence, the need to use caution in dealing with claims from much less trustworthy tabloids, especially when those claims are not supported by fact or evidence, and where getting it wrong means committing libel and breaking Wikipedia policy.  OneVeryBadMan 22:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tosh. Please state exactly which Wikipedia policy is breached. The Guardian is not a "less trustworthy tabloid".—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.153.46.223 (talk) 14:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think we could attribute the lack of consistency in Pete Doherty's sources to him frequently making facts up and changing his story, merely because he dislikes the media. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.13.81.97 (talk) 02:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliability of Sources

message: I was also a resident there and i added this with my knowledge  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edboy11 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE - salavation army
Talk:Doral Academy Preparatory School

message: The Doral Academy Preparatory School consists of four schools in a single campus. The article sometimes seems to be about one, the high school. For example the NCES reference is for the high school. At other times it includes the middle school. The other two schools are ignored. It does not help that the campus name says school rather than schools. In any case the current article is confusing to the reader. Gab4gab (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You’re right. I attend this school and there are 4 different schools, reading the article, I was confused on whether the article mentioned the Middle School, School Of Technology, The High School, and not to mention Performing Arts. In addition to the other campuses (Doral Academy Elementary, Doral Academy J.A.M (Just Arts and Management), Doral Academy Denver, Doral Academy Las Vegas, and the others that have not yet opened) 2601:586:CF01:8060:10C8:B6AC:8627:81FB (talk) 01:14, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing scope
Talk:Rosalind Bank

message: The reason I added Rosalind Bank to those categories was that Serranilla Bank article says that Rosalind is also disputed.
"Several islands were transferred to Colombia by the U.S., effective on September 17, 1981; while it is clear that almost all of the islands in the area of what is now Colombia's San Andrés and Providencia that were occupied by the United States on grounds of the Guano Islands Act since the late 19th century were returned by the United States to Colombia by 1982, it is unclear if Serranilla Bank, Bajo Nuevo Bank (and possibly Rosalind Bank) were also returned by the United States to Colombia or not."
We should explore the various national claims to this island. (Colombia, Jamacia, Nicaragua, US, etc.)
Reaganamerican 20:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rosalind Bank is a purely submarine feature. It is not an island and has no islands, cays or above-water-rocks, even at low tide. The least known depth is about 7 meters (23 feet for Americans). So what's there to claim?--Ratzer 12:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

message: Looking at the discussion above from 2007, it seems mention of a U.S. EEZ claim to Rosalind/Rosalinda Bank was never supported by evidence. The existing sources make no mention of a U.S. claim, and neither Exclusive economic zone of the United States nor the NOAA Office of Coast Survey EEZ maps indicate a U.S. claim. The 2007 IOC case regarding Honduras and Nicaragua's dispute over Rosalind Bank mentions not drawing a final line due to Colombian and Jamaican interests in the area. In 1986, Colombia and Honduras agreed to a maritime boundary in the area that puts Rosalinda in the Honduran EEZ and Serranilla in Colombia's. As best I can tell the only active dispute over the bank is between Honduras and Nicaragua ... and it's not clear to me that it is an active claim on Nicaragua's part. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  EEZ Claims
Talk:Pero's Bridge

message: Wasn't John Pinney (Pero's "owner") also a slave who won his freedom somehow?  If anyone knows the details please fill it in.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthonyjameswood  (talk • contribs) 16:03, 6 July 2007
:No, try reading John Pinney. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment
Talk:Ashton Park School

message: I think that Southwest Bristol Post 16 centre should be merged into Ashton Park Secondary School because they are effectively the same entity. The Ashton Park school website says that "Ashton Park Sixth Form is now known as 'The South West Bristol Post 16 Centre'", implying that it's just a rebranding and is still part of the school. Gasheadsteve 20:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, since no objections were raised. Gasheadsteve 18:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge of [[Southwest Bristol Post 16 centre]] into this article
Talk:Rover 200 Coupé

message: Blimey, this reads like an advert... 82.24.212.174 20:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I'd delete it but I suppose it's better than nothing till somebody can replace it. I think whoever did this (anonymous IP) has just copy and pasted a review or something.--81.101.3.9 21:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Bristol Royal Infirmary

message: File:Peter Wells (d. 1785-6), surgeon to the Bristol Royal Infirm Wellcome V0018100.jpg|Peter Wells (d. 1785/6), surgeon to the Bristol Royal Infirmary
File:Richard Smith junior (1772-1843), surgeon to the Bristol Roy Wellcome L0019577.jpg|Richard Smith junior (1772-1843), surgeon to the Bristol Royal Infirmary 1796-1843
MartinPoulter (talk) 00:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevant images from Wellcome Collection
Talk:Rondonópolis

message: There reads: According to the Brazilian census in 2010 the town had 202.045 people, but due to a huge development the population is estimated to be almost 200,000 inhabitants.
Huh? The latter part must have been forgotten there when updating the census figure. Should it be removed entirely? 85.217.22.146 (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled