lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Energy Retail Association

message: Reviewing this article as a part of WikiProject Notability: subject appears to be a reasonably notable trade organisation, 11,800 Ghits ; third-party coverage: , engagement with governmental bodies , Citizens' Advice Bureaux recognise them . Removing notability tag, but article needs expanding. DWaterson 21:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: I dispute the neutrality of this article. These bold claims are unreferenced, please help by providing refs or they can be removed. I replaced the fuel poverty causes by those on the fuel poverty article. Feel free to boldly edit this article, providing references for actions by the ERA. Widefox (talk) 09:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Advert, Totally unreferenced article with bold claims, POV

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]]
Talk:Vebjørn Tandberg

message: Could use podcast from
[]. 129.241.157.9 (talk) 11:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Enron Code of Ethics

message: This does not seem very importnat and there are no mentions in the article that anyone even noticed it other than The Smoking Gun Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why do we have this article?
Talk:Entrepreneur (magazine)

message: There was no mention of 2015 Entrepreneur of the Year Awards in the January 2016 issue, and the February 2016 issue preview doesn't mention it either. Does anyone know if the magazine has stopped giving out these awards? If so, it would require some editing of the awards section.Pistongrinder (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  2015 Awards 

message: This article references Entrepreneur Magazine, which redirects to the page itself.  I arrived from another page on Kinsey Schofield, which mentions Entrepreneur Magazine.  Does anyone have better clarity on the name of this publication?  Did it change its name at some point?  Kirby777 (talk) 01:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of publication
Talk:Killing of Edmund Perry

message: I just created this page. Every fact mentioned in it is either in the book or the Time Magazine article referenced at the bottom; I decided not to specifically footnote each fact as I went, or the entire article would have been cluttered with a footnote after each sentence. If anyone feels more specific varification is needed I can do so. Thedoorhinge 17:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Shooting of Edmund Perry →  – Per WP:Deaths. Inexpiable (talk) 09:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 14 November 2023
Talk:Equity of redemption

message: Surely someone jests?  This can't be much above stub, and certainly no higher than start? --Legis (talk - contribs) 17:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. DrKiernan (talk) 13:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: A Class?

message: I'm not opposed to the use of this word, but most people would not understand it without a dictionary.  It would be helpful to add a parenthetical expression so people don't need to look up the definition.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.207.189 (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Rehypothecate

message: The first sentence, which declares this relief a cause of action "in law" strikes me as misleading, since redemption is an explicitly equitable action. Jureperitus (talk) 21:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redemption in Law? Or in Equity?
Talk:Upstream (petroleum industry)

message: It's dull to say that oil is produced. One can extract oil from the ground but no new oil is created by drilling a hole into the soil.--62.159.14.3 (talk) 09:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "production" 

message: The "Companies involved in the upstream sector" subsection is nothing more than a place for companies to advertise themselves ... in other words, spam. I propose that we remove that subsection as well as the similar subsection in the Midstream article. mbeychok (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Fully agree. I removed it as was proposed. Beagel (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose removing "Companies involved in the midstream sector" subsection of "See also" section 
Talk:Universal Bank

message: Article reads pretty much like an advertisement. Is there any way to detect if it's being used to create credibility for some new fly-by-night operation? (In particular, I'm wondering how to confirm the claim it existed for over 50 years.) --Shanen (talk) 07:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Advertisement?
Talk:Orvietan

message: I need to comb through the Italian site once more - some spicy details still are missing in the current article.  ---Sluzzelin 17:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion 

message: Ran across this:But these nostrums were insignificant in comparison with the 'True Orvietan' discovered by Cornelius à Tilbury and sold by His Majesty's special licence. Cornelius, a worthy descendant of that Alexander of Abonuteichos immortalized by the satire of Lucian, set a high standard in his profession. According to his own account he swallowed a large dose of poison in the royal presence and then took a dose of his Orvietan, with such satisfactory results that Charles appointed him one of his surgeons-in‐ ordinary (presumably without salary). Nor was royal patronage the only advantage which Cornelius could boast over his rivals; because his remedy could be used for the diseases of cattle as well as of human beings, and as it stifled poison, so it must stifle disease. for Cornelius' account of his demonstration to Charles II, a footnote points to an unpublished (in 1934) manuscript from the Bodleian Library, Oxford, Asmhole, xxii which might now be available online. Is this the Orvietan we're looking for, or a latter imitation?—eric 20:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he might have been one of the many quacks in the business, but probably not among the first pioneers. This genealogy site suggest that he lived during the late 17th and early 18th century. I think he should be worked into the article though. ---Sluzzelin 20:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'True Orvietan' discovered by Cornelius à Tilbury
Talk:Euro Shopper

message: Hey, I work in the Dutch Albert Heijn which is the biggest seller of Euro Shopper products, and the list on this page is very, very, VERY incomplete. Can't we just remove the entire list, since there are way more products then you can imagine and new ones are introduced very often? --82.171.121.117 (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the list of products, it just seems excessive trivial information and none of the products are even close to being notable (policy-based reasons for removal are WP:NOTDIR and WP:Indiscriminate). Peter James (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove the list? 

message: The sentence "Regardless of country, all products share the same simple packaging art to uphold the image of a no-nonsense, low price brand." seems to be romanticising Euro Shopper in a way inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Should this be somehow edited or erased? Especially the words "art" and "no-nonsense" bother me.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unitoni (talk • contribs) 02:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ∫ A Y™  I edit old style  17:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lacking objectivity? 

message: Does Euroshopper even exist anymore? If not, why not delete the page! 46.249.227.166 (talk) 08:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they do - I bought Euro Shopper products today and came to this page to find out more about them and was surprised that the article started with "Euro Shopper WAS" :) Ronstar308 (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. The AMS website still also lists it as a live brand, and it remains a brand in countries like the UK under Booker. The error seems to have come from this edit by @Botterweg14, made without any citations. It may be that in a particular country the brand is defunct locally, and the editor made an assumption. But this is an international brand and edits should be made based on sources, not assumptions. DisruptedPenguin (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake! Thank you for catching it! Botterweg14 (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  ?
Talk:Turnkey

message: The University of Waterloo stanzas are irrelevant to this article under the definition of "Turnkey" as defined by the introductory paragraphs. They refer to a different usage of the term.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.6.205.34 (talk) 04:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: what is the opposite of the turnkey term?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.140.194.15 (talk) 11:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposite 

message: Throughout the article both turn-key and turnkey are used. Can anyone state which is correct? --Reptile209 (talk) 13:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct spelling? 

message: The term turnkey referring to computer systems was very common in the past. It is a shame that this article is quite blind to the relevant past. I added a relevant comment; I hope that helps. Sam Tomato (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historically very significant 

message: The Common usage section is more general and relevant than the introduction. They are inconsistent in the sense that the introduction defines turnkey in terms of projects and the Common usage section is much more general. I added a description of turnkey computer systems to the introduction. Sam Tomato (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction and Common usage
Talk:EWeek

message: The New York Times denied being hacked on August 15, and technically it was true, but misleading. 
If someone took the address sign in front of your building and placed it on a nearby building, and then someone denied that anything happened to your building, it would be true, the building was still intact, but people who never visited you before would enter the wrong building. Atlantic magazine's article was titled "How Not to Get Hacked Like the New York Times" (author Rebecca Greenfield). Pi314m (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: 2013 is not 10 years, and The Atlantic found it notable
Talk:Executive education

message: MrOllie - thank you for fixing the CNN link.  however, that article was written in 2005 and the information is out-of-date.  the wall street journal published an article earlier this year (“making the case for executive education” - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123395821293458237.html) and might be a useful reference for the next revision.  regarding the external links - the financial times executive education website is an excellent source of information.  their newspaper is one of the most prestigious in the world and this report was just published on may 11, 2009.  business week is good too but their last update on executive education came out in 2007 and the new survey is not due until later this year.  the list of upcoming open enrollment executive education programs is another unique resource.  the financial times profiles the executive education schools but does not provide this level of detail for the actual courses offered.  look forward to your feedbackExecEdStudent (talk) 03:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: On the CNN ref, just because a reference is a few years old does not mean we remove it. On reflection I agree that the link to the financial times can stay. I still don't see why the calendar site should be linked - it's just a listing of events and doesn't provide any real information or detail about the article topic. - MrOllie (talk) 14:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

message: Wouldn't a link to the list of business schools would be more appropriate than naming a handfull of institutions?PurpleDuke  15:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Providers 

message: Why not show some of the criticisms of executive education such as Chris Grey's work or that of  Sir Ken Robinson for a broader critique of education. The conservative-right wing politics of mainstream business education go far too unchallenged and I think to be free and fair this issue should be addressed on this page. 5.69.68.43 (talk) 02:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticisms of Executive education
Talk:Extended Enterprise Modeling Language

message: With this edit the following three subarticles were merged here, and redirected each to their own chapter here: 
* Goal Modelling
* Goal modeling in EEML 
* Goal-oriented Requirements Language
I think it is better now having all this information in one place, instead of scattered over these four articles. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Marcel, I think events have overtaken you. GRL is now part of an international standard, based on i*, which makes it considerably more notable than EEML. See Professor Eric Yu's homepage. So I think GRL really needs its own article now. --RichardVeryard (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just checked and it seems you are right. There seems to be some more representation on Goal-oriented Requirements Language (also written as Goal-oriented Requirement Language...!? ) then on EEML. Suddenly merging GRL here doesn't seems such a logic choice any more. I have no problem splitting this article in two again again. The GRL article still exist as a redirect. I could easily be undone. But it would be nice if that article would be improved some more first. Any interest? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I just recreated that article. I think it is still rather thin, but it will do. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The EEML Subarticles merged here 

message: * In this edit the Goal modeling in EEML  article was merged here.
* In this edit the Goal-oriented Requirements Language article was merged here.
* In this edit the Goal Modelling article was merged here.
-- Mdd (talk) 20:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy-paste registration 
Talk:Extraordinary resolution

message: The article on reserved matters doesn't give the general legal definition, it covers the British parliament. It would help the layman to have a definition of reserved matters that applies in this context of an extraordinary resolution. -- SueHay 13:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reserved matters

message: Can someone please add references? --SueHay 13:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References
Talk:Fair value

message: Can anyone please comment the fair value of bonds: Does this include or exclude Accrued interest (i.e. dirty vs clean price).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.173.163.2 (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair Value of Bonds

message: Dr. Platen has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Platen has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
*Reference : Eckhard Platen, 2005. "On the Role of the Growth Optimal Portfolio in Finance," Research Paper Series 144, Quantitative Finance Research Centre, University of Technology, Sydney.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Platen's comment on this article 
Talk:Chemotroph

message: I just looked here for AP bio homework and there were none. chemohetero= E.coli
and i think the two pages should be split, like the phototrophs are  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.34.198.249 (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs Examples 

message: "Chemoautotrophs use inorganic energy sources, such as hydrogen sulfide, elemental sulfur, ferrous iron, molecular hydrogen, and ammonia."
So what is their typical environment? If chemoautotrophs can't obtain energy from the sun I imagine they must exist in an environment that constantly provides them with new compounds that they can oxidize for energy. So if their environment can be a rock, for instance, the rock will eventually run out of compounds they can oxidize and they will run out of energy. Their source of energy must be linked to something that can provide them with a renewable source of compounds they can oxidize. It would be nice if the article was more clear on this because it leaves me scratching my head.
Correct. Chemotrophic bacteria either live next to something such as a hydrothermal vent, or produce spores to disperse when they run out of nutrients.TTTime05 (talk) 12:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused about Chemoautotrophs and their source of energy 

message: I am considering whether it is time to add Electroautotroph to the graphic?
See articles Electrotroph and Electrolithoautotroph)
Or is it premature? Are the existence of Electroautotrophs sufficiently established to add to the chart?
Just as plants with chlorophyll use photosynthesis to convert energy from light into sugars needed for growth, other organisms - like animals - gain energy for the manufacture of sugars by taking electrons from substances in their surrounding environments - a process called chemosynthesis. Organisms that gain their energy this way are called chemotrophs, and those that get their electrons through oxidation of inorganic substances are called chemolithoautotrophs. Phototrophs and chemotrophs make up two interconnected ecosystems.
We are investigating the possibility of a third type of ecosystem,” explains group leader Ryuhei Nakamura. “We call it the electro-ecosystem because microbial activity is sustained primarily by direct electrical current.”
Source: bacteria's double life: living off both iron and electricity--Paleorthid (talk) 03:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electrotrophs 

message: It might be prudent. But both articles really need some improvements TTTime05 (talk) 12:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with chemosynthesis?
Talk:Toyo Keizai

message: Japan has one of the best economies in the world, so we would do well to respect her publishers as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RCNesland (talk • contribs) 20:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Economics
Talk:Farmers Weekly

message: I think this and most of the Reed Business Information articles just seem to be one gigantic link farm / advertisement. pw 18:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Link Farm / Spam

message: I've tried to find digitised copies of FW's back issues, but without success. If they are available anywhere, even if paywalled, we should mention that in the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archives
Talk:Tomato Bank

message: NB This article is about a new-ish American bank, not about the notable Japanese bank. Kappa 03:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not the Japanese one 
Talk:Tom Kalinske

message: I'll leave it to someone else to decide on this, but the sentence " Inadvertently he contributed to the Sega Saturn failure in the US, where during E3 1995, Tom Kalinske announced that the system was available in selected stores effective immediately instead of sticking by the planned date of 2nd of September 1995, dubbed 'Saturnday.'" strikes me as extremely misleading, since every source I've seen suggests this was Nakayama's idea and Kalinske only went along with the plan kicking and screaming.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.60.144 (talk) 03:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Contributed to the decline of Saturn"
Template talk:Marvel Comics

message: This template was way too big and had too much detail on team membership and a current storyline. With that removed, this is a great template. Removal follows previous discussions that have led to the deletion of membership-based templates. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 19:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Echoing ChrisGriswold, the "Creators" category is untenable, and I've commented it out until we can discuss this.  We already have the article List of Marvel Comics people, which has 100-200 names. Are all those dozens and dozens of writers/artists going into that box? What's the criteria??? --Tenebrae 03:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Too much detail / huge

message: We have 3 sections for former divisions (Historical, Defunct Imprints, Defunct Lines) and 2 for current divisions (Current Imprints, Current Lines).  It's less precise but I think "Current Divisions" and "Former Divisions" would simplify navigation.  Thoughts? RevelationDirect (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Defunct Lines

message: What's the difference in these categories? Argento Surfer (talk) 18:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Line / Imprint 

message: I think the OHOTMU and the Official Marvel Index should get an entry in this template cause I see them as essential articles regarding secondary literature about Marvel Comics characters and comic books. Maybe under "Related"?
BTW: Are the Marvel Books not an adaptation of the stories/characters of Marvel Comics into book format? Shouldn't the entry then consequently be listed under "Adaptations"? - Weapon X (talk, contribs)  18:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Added the two enties (Marvel Index and OHOTMU) to section "Related". - Weapon X (talk, contribs)  16:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entries for ''Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe'' and ''Official Marvel Index'' 

message: Punisher: The Platoon  just finished publication in 2018 and was released under the MAX imprint. 184.178.219.137 (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  MAX is not defunct 

message: Let's do it for simplicity's sake as Marvel comics is a division anyway. All the information should remain intact. 24.126.30.250 (talk) 06:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge into [[Template:Marvel Entertainment]]