lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Throwing Muses

message: I found a citation for the new project (http://www.slicingupeyeballs.com/2011/01/08/throwing-muses-new-album-video-feed/) but I don't know how to make put it on the page. Can someone who knows how to do it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.232.105 (talk) 04:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation for the new project? 

message: Not sure what the author means by ",although did not contribute to any other albums" in regard to Tanya Donnelly singing backup on the 2003 album. We're only talking about one album to which there was no follow up. I think we're trying to say all she did was provide backing vocals on this album and nothing else, but the fragment doesn't elucidate that concept. So, I think we can drop that last part entirely, but I thought I'd throw it out for clarification before I go whackin' things.
PW  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.159.62.182 (talk) 01:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last fragment in "Reformation 2003- Present" section 

message: I still remember that during the early 1990's they were an opening band for one of R.E.M.'s tours. Since I passed up that concert, does anybody know how well received they were? ---------User:DanTD (talk)  15:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Touring with R.E.M. 

message: The intro text conflicts with the history section.  The first has the band forming in 1981 and the second in 1983 Pdarley (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent Dates 

message: I swapped the info-box photo for a more recent shot and moved the 1986 promotional photo onto the page. It was awkward placing the 2014 shot within the biography at the very end where there's not as much text to support it in the layout. And since the band has been going for so long, it's probably more informative to provide a more recent photo at the top of the page (disclosure: I took that photo--if an even more recent one comes along, I'm open to putting that there instead). Thanks. --Utilizer (talk) 20:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos
Talk:Golden Mean

message: I am sure this will be edited greatly.  What is needed is someone to flesh out the golden mean in archetecture and art in this piece.  
There is no understanding of Greek thought and action and culture without this idea. WHEELER 18:58, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

message: Should this article be called golden mean (meaning, all downcase)? Oleg Alexandrov 00:12, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalization of article title

message: Part of the article describes the golden ratio, and part (particularly the sections "Pythagoras", "Golden mean in philosophy", "Quotations" and probably "Miscellanea") deals with the philosophical concept already discussed in Nicomachean Ethics#The Golden Mean, which is more related to nullum nimis or middle way. The golden ratio page disambiguates the two meanings, and we should only merge text of the first kind into that article. — Sebastian (talk) 15:22, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
I'm opposed to merging these two articles.  The Golden Ratio is an article which satisfies those who seek a mathematical understanding and appreciation of the concept while The Golden Mean satisfies those who seek an understanding and appreciation which is philosophical or aesthetical.  I doubt very much that a satisfactory article can be created which maintains the clairity that each has striven to achieve GeneMosher 13:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Golden ratio ≠ middle way 

message: I've changed the attention tag to a dated cleanup.  This article is already listed for AfD but if it surives I suggest a 30 day period where this article has a chance to be updated into a coherent article rather than a mish-mash of lossely related topics.  If that doesn't happen it should go up for AfD again (assuming it survives the current vote).--Isotope23 19:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a little work on the intro section, but I won't do any details until the discussion about deletion has finished.  WhiteC 03:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup tag

message: There is extensive discussion, and debate, about what should be done with this article at Articles for deletion/Golden Mean. Finell 22:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golden Mean|Articles for deletion/Golden Mean]]
Talk:Dichroic prism

message: "...high-pass filter coating (F1) that reflects blue light (high-frequency), but transmits longer wavelengths (lower frequencies)."
Shouldn't that be low pass? 83.104.249.240 (talk) 04:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That would typically be called "long-pass", and frequencies would not be mentioned.  Dicklyon (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  High pass or low pass? 

message: not to merge.
The article at Three-CCD camera should be merged with this article.
The "Three-CCD camera" article is almost exclusively about the dicroic prism assembly.  Although the article refers to CCD sensors throughout, the article is equally valid for MOS sensors or any future development.  Redirects for "Three-CCD camera", 3CCD, 3MOS et. etc should be made to this article to avoid broken wikilinks. 109.157.161.93 (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to have misinterpreted my suggestion of where to add the projector material.  And you seem to be saying merge into the other article (or delete this one and rename Three-CCD camera to be Dichroic prism; it would not be appropriate to do as you say and copy the contents of that one into this one (that's called an improper move, which is essentially what this merge proposal is suggesting).  And there are about 900 books mentioning "dichroic prism", but the majority of them, by far, do not mention it in the context of a camera.  Someone should write the prism article first, before arguing for this move.  Dicklyon (talk) 07:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that was rather the point.  I'm not sure what you can say about a 3-CCD camera that is not about the optical assembly. 109.145.22.224 (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

text:  * Oppose. I second the suggestion by Paul Pot. I came across this article, specifically because I wanted to know what was happening when 3CCD was mentioned by video camera manufacturers. My question was answered - and with remarkable clarity; not in an ultra-scientific description that might have resulted from a discussion on a particular prism. Just take a quick peek at the CCD article. Try reading that three times. Makes your head hurt.  Thumbs up to Dichroic prism merger into Beam splitter and Three-CCD camera expanded to types of cameras in general. --J.C. Martinez-Sifre (talk) 01:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal
Talk:Philosophy/Archive 1

message: :The introduction of the term "philosophy" was ascribed to the Greek thinker Pythagoras (see Diogenes Laertius: "De vita et moribus philosophorum", I, 12; Cicero: "Tusculanae disputationes", V, 8-9).  This ascription is certainly based on a passage in a lost work of Herakleides Pontikos, a disciple of Aristotle.  It is considered to be part of the widespread Pythagoras legends of this time.  In fact the term "philosophy" was not in use long before Plato.
Can someone clairfy this paragraph a bit? Why is the "certainly" necessary in the second sentence? What is "the widespread Pythagoras legends"? I realise that Plato came slightly before Aristotle, being his teacher, but that cronology is not obvious to people who haven't studied philosophy. What is this paragraph, in essense, trying to say?! -- Sam 19:58, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right about that. But the three, great greeks: Socrates, Plato and Aristotle always comes in that order. Not just because they were eachother's teacher/student, but because Plato adds the metaphysical ideas to Socrates' philosophy, while Aristotle develops physical ideas from that again. The build upon each other. The last sentence: "In fact the term "philosophy" was not in use long before Plato." seems rather unnecessary to me. - Sigg3.net 21:12, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: 19

message: I removed this part from the Philosophy homepage: * Economic philosophy: The branch of philosophy that addresses issues of economic distribution, equality, justice, poverty and progress, from the standpoint of first principles.
In all my years of reading history, economics and philosophy (that's what my BA is in) I've never heard of this branch (that is not to say that it does not exist). Using Google, the first 2 results were that of Henry George (of the "Single Tax" fame) and Karl Marx.  Not to do a guilt by association, but if that branch actually exists, it is esoteric tilted towards the "socialism" or "communism" side of things and therefore should be named as such.
I could myself hijack that term and simply state: "The branch of philosophy that addresses issues of economic intervention, market distribution, statism and libertarianism from the standpoint of classical economists."
But that would be openly biased and a POV. --Tejano 20:04, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: 20

message: How can you qualify to have a quote on Wikipedia and this Philosophy article? - Sigg3.net 15:28, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: 21

message: Hi, I just added moral character to the "Philosophical issues, theories, and movements" section.  It was listed on cleanup (you can see what it originally consisted of here).  I tried to create a reasonable stub, but it desperately needs people who know about philosophy to work on it.  I don't even know if what I wrote is fair and true, and if it could be described as a consensus of opinion/knowledge on the subject.  It is also crying out for a "history of thought on the subject" section.  Philosophy is not my forte, help!  Fabiform 03:59, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: 23
Talk:Octahedral number

message: This article is to be expanded by giving a formula.
(moved from the article to this discussion page - Tεxτurε 19:49, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: Try this:
(4n3+2n)/6
~r3hall
Moderator of http://forums.delphiforums.com/figurate/start
:The OEIS gives the formula (2n^3 + n)/3, which is obviously the same as the same as the one you give but expressed in the lowest common denominator. PrimeFan (talk) 00:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative formula 

message: 1156 seems to be the only octahedral square number KlokkoVanDenBerg (talk) 01:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not counting 0 and 1, you mean? Maybe, but we can't include this sort of information without published reliable sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: 1156
Talk:North (Something Corporate album)

message: where does the band stand in christianity? in the album "North"  a good number of songs mention god or Jesus in the lyrics Jesus in "Me and the moon" and god in "Down" and "I won't make you", and maybe others since I havent listened to all its songs.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.65.47 (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  where they stand 
Talk:Ethics/Archive 2

message: IMO, following the new intro I've just added and lots of work by RK, the neutrality warning could now be removed. Other thoughts? Andrewa 15:49, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)
:Sounds fine to me. Do any of our already signed in users, who have been contributing to this discussion, have any thoughts?
::RK thinks it would be premature, see the reply to my comments there (bottom of user talk page). Andrewa 21:44, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)
:::I think you are confusing RK with 142.177. See the history of RK's talk page. I don't believe RK has commented yet. Angela 22:24, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)
::::You are quite correct, thank you...! Apologies to both RK and 142.177, I missed that. Andrewa 06:22, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality dispute
Talk:Club Athletico Paranaense

message: Users often blocked  see wi-pt,  behave like, so that here, not. Veloster (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: User:31Julho1985

message: Most top clubs have their own page for the women's team. They don't even get a mention on the men's page! GrimRob (talk) 10:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need a separate page for the women's team
Talk:List of Magic: The Gathering sets

message: Currently, the Core Sets symbols are 30px x 30px while the expansion symbols are 35px x 35px. These should be uniform across the article. I will update the Core Set symbols to be 35px x 35px when I have time available. COMPUTERTRASH (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: upon further review, there were only a couple of symbols at 35x35, which have now been corrected to 30x30 COMPUTERTRASH (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Set symbol size 

message: The majority of the expansion sets, as well as a few of the core sets are missing set symbols. These need to be added for everything up to the most recent announced symbols. COMPUTERTRASH (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I have put in upload requests for M15 and Magic Origins so far. I will continue adding requests for symbols in the meantime for the Core Sets before moving on to the expansion sets. COMPUTERTRASH (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Set Symbols 

message: Limited Edition Alpha through 4th Edition were originally released without set symbols, however, WotC have provided symbols that are used in other places to identify these sets. Should these symbols be used in this article where there is a place for them while also mentioning that these were not printed on the cards initially? COMPUTERTRASH (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the first 5 core sets have symbols?
Talk:Memphis soul

message: This page needs an NPOV edit and a general re-write, as do most of the other pages written by this person.
* Claims such as these: "To this day, the entire genre of Memphis soul music is in accordance with their perfected sound of the 70s." "Soul is the backbone of all American music genres today." are absurd and have no place in an encyclopedia 172.58.221.23 (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I gave rewriting it a shot. I'm sure my try could also use some refinement later too. I think the way the wording was prior to my edit was a little too closely verbatim from another source.
-User:Bebop (to reach me, my user page is linked in the history file) 06:55, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  I agree 

message: The page I created, based on information provided by the Memphis Convention and Visitors Bureau, complements your article.  I was wondering if you would mind converging the two?  Please review my article, and let me know what you think. Brandivan 20:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Memphis Soul Music
Talk:Emperor Go-Komatsu

message: He ascended to the throne in 1382. He was in the northern line, which later historians regarded as illegitimate. In 1392 the north-south conflict was dessolved and the southern emperor abdicated. --Nanshu 23:10, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I don't challenge the content of this article, but "Brown" is cited several times as a source, even though no bibliographical info appears to be given on the page. elvenscout742 (talk) 08:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The edits to this paragraph  here help resolve the problem. --Ansei (talk) 16:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Delmer Brown]]
Talk:Venetian Snares

message: I don't think Find Candace is notable as the content is mostly unsourced and trivial. See my merge request at Talk:Find Candace#Merge request. Alduin2000 (talk) 11:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can't find three major reviews for each album, feel free to boldly merge the contents and reliable, secondary sources. czar 14:49, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

text: The problem is that the information on these pages was almost completely unsourced, and often WP:Original research. There is no way of knowing if the information in the pages is correct if no sources on the subject exist. If you can find multiple sources (not just reviews) that give information about the albums then they should certainly be restored but I don't think there is enough coverage so I think they should be changed back to redirects. Alduin2000 (talk) 20:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to publish original research on audio sample provenance. There are plenty of other non-encyclopedia wikis to compile that information. We only afford articles to topics that have significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) Keep the redirects if no additional sourcing is added when reverted. czar 21:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

text: Feel free to copy and maintain the info on another wiki with attribution, if you'd like. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia for a general readership. This article gives a good overview of why we only cover topics that have significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?)  czar 02:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

text: Or you can just visit the albums' respective . The edit histories are public. czar 01:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

text: We only keep dedicated album articles when the dedicated album can be shown to have significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) If there isn't enough reliable sourcing to do justice to the topic, it should be covered in a parent article. For example, if one of the albums you mention is only covered in one source, it should be covered in the artist or discography articles, without a tracklist. If you're looking for the tracklist of every VS album, you're thinking of a different website. WP is a general encyclopedia written for a general audience, not a directory of every album and its tracklisting. czar 10:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge requests 

message: * More to ILL: https://web.archive.org/web/20180519011900/http://www.rojaro.com/searchname2.php?name=venetian+snares&searchtype=exact&maxhits=100
czar 10:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources
Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro

message: Please see .  Anthony has returned to his trolling ways concerning deletions.  RickK 00:07, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
* Comments to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro 
====Comments and votes by arbitrators (1/3/1/0)====
* Recuse. →Raul654 07:21, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
* Accept Fred Bauder 13:19, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
* Reject.  It appears that at least some of the articles were illegitimately deleted, and Anthony has been able to articulate a reasonable position on several others -- I grant that a few articles appear to be worthy of deletion, but surely one isolated edit (in which several legitimate requests were made) is insufficient evidence for an arbitration case.  There is a standing order concerning Anthony -- if admins feel he's in violation, then block him for 24 hours and be done with it.  Personally, unless Anthony makes two or three other such edits, I'd call this exactly the situation that a standing order was created for in the first place -- an isolated incident which Anthony will be temp-blocked for.  If Anthony doesn't like the standing order, according to his terms, he can request arbitration instead, and at that point I'd accept. Jwrosenzweig 22:51, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Request to re-open [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro|Anthony DiPierro]]

message: * Recuse. →Raul654 07:21, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
* Accept Fred Bauder 13:19, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
* Reject.  It appears that at least some of the articles were illegitimately deleted, and Anthony has been able to articulate a reasonable position on several others -- I grant that a few articles appear to be worthy of deletion, but surely one isolated edit (in which several legitimate requests were made) is insufficient evidence for an arbitration case.  There is a standing order concerning Anthony -- if admins feel he's in violation, then block him for 24 hours and be done with it.  Personally, unless Anthony makes two or three other such edits, I'd call this exactly the situation that a standing order was created for in the first place -- an isolated incident which Anthony will be temp-blocked for.  If Anthony doesn't like the standing order, according to his terms, he can request arbitration instead, and at that point I'd accept. Jwrosenzweig 22:51, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments and votes by arbitrators (1/3/1/0)
Talk:List of political parties in Minnesota

message: I realize others have the right to add and delete info but the name of this page is List of political parties it seems like this page has morphied into  political party history and strenght in Minn (that may not be bad, but the page was supposed to be a list Smith03 19:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: List
Talk:List of rock and roll albums in the 1960s

message: What do all those numbers mean? Are they in any way helpful? If so, to whom?
Example:
*The Beatles - Rubber Soul 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 26
is
*The Beatles - Rubber Soul 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 26
I hope it's self-explanatory why editing this page is virtually impossible. <KF> 07:37, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Talk:Spring

message: True or false: this article belongs at Spring (disambiguation) and Spring (season) at Spring. 66.245.124.71 23:10, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on whether the season is the most wanted definition... a developer could grep the logs and see which of the subpages is visited the most from here. We can also analyze the un-disambiguated links, and links in general. --Joy [shallot] 21:45, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I say false. Keep it how it is. HereToHelp 13:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the OP. The most used link seems to be to Spring (season). Also, Fall, another commonly used word, links to Autumn, further supporting this case. --Yono 00:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is Spring (device). There is only one major use for Fall because the verb isn't a potential encyclopedia article. Spring (device) is a very important article (probably in the core). I don't think this disambiguation page can go anywhere but here. Dekimasu 21:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention water springs, which are also very important. It might be able to redirect to a better title, but it would still need disambiguation here. No one is going to find Spring (hydrosphere) directly. Dekimasu 21:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  True or false?? 

message: The spring is used in engineering and physics as a model of disparate processes.  That is, the mathematical formalism is used for systems obeying F = -kx or P.E. = ½kx² (there are more precise tensorial and/or matrix equations).  Since there is no article on this abstract usage, I am going to add a reference to the Wikipedia article on Hooke's Law in the "See also" section.71.31.148.44 (talk) 20:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing engineering usage? 

message: *Spring (season) = springtime
*Spring (device) = ?
*Spring (hydrology) = water spring
*Spring (mathematics) = ?
*Spring (political terminology) = revolutionary wave
*Springs (tide) = spring tide
--Yejianfei (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do there exist some alternative terms or synonyms for disambiguation?