lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Ashur-nadin-ahhe I

message: The reference given for the statement that "a letter survives of Ashur-Nadin Ahhe I congratulating Thutmose I...", Stephen Bertman (14 July 2005). Handbook to Life in Ancient Mesopotamia. OUP USA. pp. 79–. ISBN 978-0-19-518364-1, is simply a restatement of the claim without any reference given.  The book with p.79 is available for preview on Google books. A Google search finds this statement repeated again and again but nowhere is there to be found a reference to the letter itself, it's catalog number, the contents of the letter, or anything by which the letter can be identified, reviewed or verified even to actually exist, aside from this statement from The Handbook to Life in Ancient Mesopotamia declaring that it does. This citation is circular, or a spiraling dead end rather. The statement references itself.  It does nothing but create the a hollow appearance of rigor and prove that someone did infact make the statement but offers nothing supporting the claim that the statement is true. 2600:1004:B033:6FC0:25FF:C0C0:3C0B:36C6 (talk) 03:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a circular reference – the information was added to the article in 2016 and follows a book released in 2005. It is generally regarded as enough to reference a reliable source and not ancient documents themselves. Is there a reason to doubt the existence of this letter or is disputing it original research? Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insufficient Reference
Talk:One Shot (song)

message: Could someone please add  and  to this page?  Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 01:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Done — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you!  GoingBatty (talk) 04:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request
Talk:Oklahoma Department of Career and Technology Education

message: In what ways would the notability of this article be improved? Jzwei 03:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability
Talk:The Color of Water

message: Dang, I was hoping that there would be a plot summary for this book... I read it for summer reading for this school year, and now I have to do an essay on it.  The problem is, I read it almost one year ago, and I can't remember much of the plot.  Could somebody here help me out?  I'd prefer that it be done quickly...  --Luigifan 18:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Darn it!  Doesn't anybody remember the book?  --Luigifan 13:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Argh!  I need a plot summary, ASAP!!!

message: hopefully you found my input helpful:)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.93.91 (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem solved!!!

message: Every high school English teacher I have had will tell you those are NOT themes. Motifs, maybe, but not themes. A theme is a sentence about a concept, not just a phrase or a vague idea. --Fortytuna 2:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Themes

message: Can you really have symbols in a true story? The "foreshadowing" in the story obviously couldn't be intentional in a true story, unless parts of it were fiction.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.13.154 (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Symbols" 

message: Clearly, this is a book that US students are studying in school, so it's current/topical. But is it significant? There seems to be no indication in the body of the article that the author or the book are noteworthy?
(I suspect they are, given the NYT article on Ruth's death, but this (WP) article doesn't currently report or support it in any way, eg. # of schools using it as a text, reviews from relevant peers, awards, ...?) Natebailey (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merit/significance? 

message: I know that it's not really my place to comlain especially considering that I'm not making edits but this is one of the most poorly written articles here. It is poorly written in that it isn't neutral and sounds like a 4th graders summary of the book. It also doesn't give enough information such as birthplace of characters.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viequespr (talk • contribs) 02:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complaint 
Talk:Head (linguistics)

message: Colorless green ideas is actually ungrammatical: English NPs have only one "slot" for color adjectives. Compare red blue tulips. Surely we can find a better example and not perpetuate an example (analysis) that was flawed from the beginning. --RJCraig 18:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Colorless green ideas" is a grammatical noun phrase. Reference: Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. 139.62.223.13 17:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

message: While there does appear to be some information in this article (even though it's somewhat short, and it is unclear why the "parameter" article has to be separate from this one, seeing how most of the info overlaps, the contents are pretty much completely impenetrable to anyone who isn't a linguist himself.. could someone please add a few examples and more text, to clarify this article? (especially the first few lines are almost pointless, as they don't contrast the example with anything else)
"For example, in the big red dog, the word dog is the head, as it determines that the phrase is a noun phrase" < why is it meaningful to call "dog" the head, rather than just a noun? 
The example doesn't explain this at all, since all you give in the example is the noun phrase, and not how it relates to the rest of the sentence., or to the rest of the whole field of linguistics.
What you want to point out is the difference between head first and head final phrases, not how adjectives modify nouns.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boombaard (talk • contribs) 21:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  readability 

message: .--Qdinar (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  what is first time this term used and what term was used before that? 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Zero-level projection. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 2#Zero-level projection until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  signed, Rosguill talk 18:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Zero-level projection" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Polyeuctus

message: Since there is another important Polyeuctus, who was the Patriarch of Constantinople in the 10th century, I think this article should be moved to "Saint Polyeuctus of Miletene" and "Polyeuctus" should be turned into a disambiguation page.  I was in the process of trying to achieve this, but someone decided to go back to the old set up.
I added a "disambiguation," but go ahead and do it in the way you describe if you prefer. --Polylerus 23:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: editing this article
Talk:Angel Station

message: my name is Penelope Morgan Caesar,skypename penny4heaven,webpages,
Angelstation Earth,and 
Penny4heaven.AngelstationEarth2a.morgandidden@tele2.nl
I'm only 1 week on the net,but I make music for over 40
years,wich of it is almost nothing published,but lots is
finnished,and recorded,and analogely mixed.I'm starting to 
learn to use the computer.I have selfcomposed matterial for
years.A little sonic goldmine.Read my profile on skype.
sincerely yours,
Penelope Morgan Caesar.Friday;24-02-2012  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.176.90.165 (talk) 04:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Pieter Brueghel the Younger

message: The designation 'Flemish painter' requires nuance. That term was later given to a tradition of painting, but the painter would never have identified himself as Flemish at the time. It is therefore better to talk about a Brabant painter who is considered part of Flemish painting. Therefore the request to adjust this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramon1974 (talk • contribs) 11:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Flemish Painter?

message: The sentence "Brueghel later even married the wife of his master" needs to go. Van Mander tells us that Pieter II studied under Gilles van Coninxloo, but there doesn't seem to be any information anywhere that I've seen to suggest that Elisabeth Godelet, his real wife, was earlier married to his master. I am going to fix some of the mistakes on this page. The German version is quite good and provides a fair model. --Stomme 19:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wife of Coninxloo?

message: ? Framed the Old Shepard on board .Any information ? Tracyquest (talk) 07:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pieter Bruegel
Talk:Thornhill v. Alabama

message: I rate this as "high" importance because it is one of the five Supreme Court decisions most often cited by later Supreme Court decisions. Kingdon 18:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, those were just citations from 2005, I now see.  Perhaps it isn't as reliable a guide to importance as I thought (of the 5, we have good articles on 3, but are missing this one and NAACP v. Button, a racial discrimination case from 1963). Kingdon 19:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  High Importance
Talk:John Gardner Ford

message: I don't think the picture on this page is of Jack Ford.  He seemed to be fairly heavy in the news coverage of President Ford's funeral.  The photo on this page appears to be Steven Ford.  Also, on Steven Ford's page, there is a photo of Michael Ford.  These photos need to be on the correct pages. Dbart 18:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The Secret Service gives presidents family some codenames. His codename was
Packman. Should this be in article?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Service_codename--Oleg Str (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Secr. Serv. Codename
Talk:Connaught Tunnel

message: It had a grade of only 0.95 per cent westward, and was tangent; light at one end can be seen at the other ...
What does "tangent" mean in this context? And why the past tense? CaGlwwWEDymzc7KBQC8u (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording
Talk:School of Environmental Studies (disambiguation)

message: The two articles serve the same function. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 13:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: There is now also a separate List of environmental degree-granting institutions. I would suggest that the new, merged article be restricted only to those institutions with a formal 'School of Environmental Studies' type name. The broader list function should be channeled to the new article. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 01:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge request
Talk:Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach

message: I see that G.-M._Cupertino has changed the dates for this country's existence from 1809-1920 to 1809-1918. 1918 was when the Grand Duchy was abolished; but Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach continued to exist, I guess as a republic, until it was merged into Thuringia in 1920. The article is about the country, not the Grand Duchy - so I propose changing the end date back to 1920. Maproom (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: End of SWE

message: The flag currently displayed shows a a horizontal tricolour of black-green-yellow. This pattern is mentioned in the African National Congress article as being the flag of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach from 1813-1897. Flags Of The World states:
"The tricolour was black over green over yellow from 1813 until 1897 and black over yellow over green from 1897 until 1918. 
Source:  Jens Hild: "Einführung der 'sächsischen Dreifarb' vor 200 Jahren"  (Introduction of the Saxonian Tricolour 200 years ago); published in "Der Flaggenkurier" no.38; Berlin 2013; pp.35-36 
Suggest either altering the text underneath the flag to reflect the dates that specific pattern was used, or update the flag to the later version of black-yellow-green.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdarcyflynn (talk • contribs) 21:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the file (image) of the flag in Commons also gives the dates 1813-1897, I changed the caption in the article to reflect those dates. - Donald Albury 22:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: The Flag
Talk:Kingdom of Württemberg

message: This article needs to be merged with the article Württemberg because they both cover the same material and time period - until 1918. Both are fair to good articles and would be a very good article if merged.--TGC55 (talk) 02:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To keep the discussion in one place, see Talk:Württemberg - 52 Pickup (deal) 06:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Württemberg]]? 

message: The rather farcically stilted language of this article very strongly suggests that it began as a (legal) copy-paste of the 1911 Britannica article on the topic, yet it does not bear the typical tag for this. (PS: Yes, I am intentionally mocking B'11 with the phrase "rather farcically stilted".) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 08:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Britannica 1911 tag? 

message: The Württemberg article is entirely copied from the Encyclopædia Britannica entry, which was made specifically for the Kingdom of Württemberg status in 1911. There's no reason to put info about a specifically year in a article that period covers more then 900 years of history. And for the others periods of Württemberg history there are plenty of articles, as History of Württemberg, County of Württemberg, Duchy of Württemberg, Electorate of Württemberg and Free People's State of Württemberg.-Ilhador- (talk) 17:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal

message: Upon request, hit this. Comments:
* The history section is overly focused on royalty and constitutional matters. What else happened? At the same time, the constitutionl changes aren't really discussed.
* Where are the footnotes?
* Added some expand and clarify tags
* I'd delete the stuff about the modern economy (e.g., wine output) and focus on the place at the time. You wouldn't write about current retsina production in an article on ancient Greece...
:Cheers Lfstevens (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't check, but i bet 99% of this article came from the Britannica. Jack Bufalo Head (talk) 23:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyedit 

message: In German wikipedia
"Die Flagge des Königreichs war oben schwarz und unten rot. Diese Landesfarben wurden per Dekret von König Wilhelm I. am 26. Dezember 1816[48] eingeführt. Sie lösten die erst am 14. Dezember 1809 eingeführten Farben Schwarz-Rot-Gold ab. Diese Änderung war nicht zuletzt vor dem Hintergrund geschehen, dass Trikoloren während der Vorherrschaft Frankreichs in Europa beliebt geworden waren. Nach den Befreiungskriegen war die damit verbundene revolutionäre Symbolik verpönt; jedoch waren Rot-Gelb nun auch die Landesfarben des neuen Nachbarn Baden, und Schwarz-Gelb waren die habsburgischen Farben, so dass als einzige zweifarbige Kombination Schwarz-Rot übrig geblieben war."
This means that from 14 December 1809 till 26 December 1816, the flag of Wurttemberg was a Black-Red-Gold Tricolor Corruptikoo (talk) 13:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag (Dec. 14 1809 to Dec. 26 1816)
Talk:Corey Duffel

message: This page should not be deleted it serves a purpose, to Skateboarders on Wikipedia. ClayteX 19:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I rewrote the section about his comments towards stevie. It's by no means perfect as is, but I think it provides a much more fair look at the event. There's so much more than was put in the one-sentence afterthought we had before. This edit covers other things mentioned in the original interview as well as things said later in an interview with Thrasher.
-christos
72.137.103.253 (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Racist Comments

message: Is it necessary to put "himself" after each video appearance? One would assume it would be for his skateboarding, not as an actor. Dubkiller 02:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Himself
Talk:Willamette Week

message: This is a very thorough article, but reads like marketing material for the paper. It needs some work. -Pete 19:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Also needs some further copyediting--italics, wikifying, and rewording here and there. Oh yeah, and the formatting's wonky. Katr67 19:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: To improve to B class: no trivia section, general clean-up to reach NPOV. Aboutmovies 07:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Start

message: Somebody anonymous just did a good job improving the article. Thanks, whoever! I'd like to suggest we take this a step further, as it's been tagged for some time, and is a fairly important article.
I believe a number of the items need to be deleted. I suggest the "Notable articles" section should be considered by the following criterion: is the Willamette Week's coverage notable? As opposed to, is the event notable? The best way to judge this is whether the Willamette Week's coverage of the issue was mentioned by other reliable sources. WW's role in the Goldschmidt story, for instance, was noted several times by the Oregonian and the Portland Tribune, and also earned the reporter a Pulitzer prize; so that one would clearly stay. But for most of the other stories, while their subject was notable enough to warrant coverage, are not necessarily notable as Willamette Week stories.
Any comments before we start whacking and trimming? The paper definitely merits a better article than this, so let's get this taken care of! -Pete (talk) 05:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea Pete. VanTucky Talk 05:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This page backs up many of the claims in the article; however, note the use of the word "we." This is probably a self-description submitted by Willamette Week. Any opinions on whether this qualifies as a reliable source, regarding the specific claims made? For a start, I'd say it is sufficient to establish that WW's owners also own the SF Reporter. (Which I also know to be true independently.) -Pete (talk) 07:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, I finally acted on this suggestion, removing a number of items. I also removed some content from the Sam Adams section that wasn't supported by the source cited. -Pete (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  To improve the article
Talk:Sheet Metal Workers' International Association

message: This page should be renamed to match the new name of this Union: International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers. - Rrenner (talk) 10:47, September 22, 2016‎ (UTC)
:I disagree.  SMWIA and UTU merged into a new union.  An article for that new union now exists.  This page, and the UTU page, should be changed to reflect that those unions are now defunct and merged into SMART. - Tim1965 (talk) 05:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming
Talk:Lewis Hyde

message: I just reverted an editor's deletion of content in a textbook as "unreferenced".  Specifically, listing Gabriella Coleman under "influenced".  A quick look at Coleman's wikipedia entry indeed shows that Coleman is "influenced" by Hyde.  Sadly, we apparently can't include a reference in the infobox.  So I include it here for reference: 
As for Hyde's American nationality (which was also removed from the infobox as "unreferenced") -- he lives in America, has worked in America, went to school in America, and his entire professional career has apparently been in America.  Moreover, according to the Wikipedia article on Lewis Hyde, he was born in Boston.  So, I think that makes him basically American.  
If the problem is having an infobox, please, by all means, delete it.  But let's not selectively delete content as "unreferenced".  
Any other thoughts? --Lquilter (talk) 01:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You can include a reference in the infobox; however, the particular parameter you're trying to reference in this case no longer exists. It would thus be better to discuss and reference the influence in the article itself, so that it can actually be seen by readers. As to American, that was part of formatting, not removing unsourced material. If you review the documentation for the infobox template, you'll note that nationality "should only be used if nationality cannot be inferred from the birthplace" (and as you point out, he was born in the US), while citizenship should only be used "if different from nationality ... [and] if citizenship cannot be inferred from the birthplace". Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the explanation; that's much clearer to me.   "Out-of-date parameters in infobox" makes a lot more sense to me than "fmt, rm unsourced".  Unfortunately, a lot of editors use inaccurate edit summaries to disguise edits that are a bit, shall we say, squirrelly.  So, when I see actions that are out of sync with the edit summaries, I get concerned.  And I'm very happy that folks like you are running around cleaning up infobox parameters!  --Lquilter (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "unreferenced" in infobox 
Talk:Vacuum insulated panel

message: * This article doenst seem to be neutral and reads a little like an advert. It's quotes things like this: "While offering fantastic insualtion values for a given thickness" nd is an opinion, and is not neutral. It generally reads like an advert and needs a bit of cleanup - any suggestions?.  Tellyaddict 19:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I seem to recall that this article at one time had actual information about vacuum panelling and aerogel cores and such. Now it's just spam. I'll try and rewrite it later if I don't succumb to chronic laziness first. AeoniosHaplo 12:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened here? 

message: Google gives a lot more hits for vacuum insulation panel (about 12,400) than for vacuum insulated panel (about 674). Both terms seem to refer to the same thing — for example, they are used interchangeably on this page from toolbase.org. Would anyone object if I move this page to Vacuum insulation panel? -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 11:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change title of page?