lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Eldred v. Ashcroft

message: This article is ripe for some serious pruning.  Since the Court has ruled, most of this information is now unnecessary.  (Some of it was already.  For example, the change from Reno to Ashcroft.)
: Go for it! --Eloquence 14:48 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)
: The Reno thing is useful, as are the district and appeals court opinions.  Don't take them out.  Though you could move more of the substance of the article to the front, and leave that stuff lower down in a sort of "blow by blow" section.  In general, don't remove information-- just push it farther down in the article. Dachshund
----
I noticed an inconsistancy in the use of terms, and I don't know which one is correct. In the District Court section, the article refers to the principle of "public trust", but in the Court of Appeals section, the article uses the term "public interest." They seem to be referring to the same thing. adam
I'm not sure what Free Culture was supposed to point to, but it leads to a disambig page now. Book, subculture or website, guys? IMFromKathlene 04:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

message: I think at the moment the article is not very clear in stating - since the very beginning - what the case is about and who won. Also in the background it is not clear which were the arguments. I think it should be mention that Lawrence Lessig argued the unconstitutionality of the law and it is also important to refer to the birth of Creative Commons. This case is cited as an important step towards the establishment of free licenses; this is important also to state the relevance of this article. I try to adjust the text with references. iopensa (talk) 07:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarity and Relevance
Talk:Class variable

message: not sure where i'm supposed to put this, top or bottom, but this is an incorrect definition. in many oop languages, including c# and java, a class member variable or (class variable) for short is instance agnostic. e.g. it can either be a static or an instance variable. can someone fix this? -bc  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.125.183.186 (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: fuck it. i fixed it. vera, your definition here is incorrect. - bc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.140.83 (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Actually, class variable values are by definition shared by all instances of a class, and instance variables can never be class variables. See  for an explanation of this for Java and  for a Python one. Even Objective C, which does not have a dedicated class variable syntax, recognizes the concept of class variables as distinct from instance variables in its runtime reference at . I will edit the article to remove any confusion about this and add citations. Links to references for other object-oriented languages' use of the "class variable" term would be very welcome, particularly links to C# and C++ references. -cph --173.226.146.65 (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shared across instances 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Static field. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 17#Static field until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.   - Jay (Talk) 07:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Static field" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Slavoj Žižek

message: I can understand Yanis Varoufakis, but what is Tsipras doing there? For God's shake. Tsipras has absolutely nothing to do with this, or anything like this. 2A00:23C7:9BAA:BC01:8857:6BD4:A1BD:4966 (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tsipras? 

message: I've just noticed that Slavoj Žižek has been recategorized as a "writer on Atheism". Not that I've read all of Žižek's works, but some of them, and it is widely known that he has written on freedom, marxism, capitalism, popular culture... But I can't remember that he wrote specifically on atheism in any of his books. This biography just mentions a New York Times article, is it enough for adding this category? Isn't it redundant since it is categorized as an "atheist philosopher"? Sorry, but I can't understand why is this category included here, and wanted to read some other opinions instead of deleting it without any consensus. PedroAcero76 (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writer on Atheism?
Talk:Camp X-Ray

message: Sources sub page  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minerva (talk • contribs) 22:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

message: It'd be interesting and useful to see a list of the nationalities of detainees at the camp if anyone can find this infomation. Grunners 17:24, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  nationalities of detainees
Talk:Roquefort

message: The guide to pronunciation says "rock-fort". Is this correct? I would have thought the 't' would be silent, being French.
Markparker 13:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But keep in mind that this is the English wikipedia, so pronunciations should be written as they are spoken in English (or list different ways when there is regional variability, which is often the case). Seems like both Random House and American Heritage say the 't' is pronounced. digfarenough (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be more like roke-for anyway.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.31.237 (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: I redirected Roquefort to this article and put a redirect disambiguation on top; the disambiguation page as it is only has one other active article, one sentence about the town the cheese is made in. Best go straight to the cheese I thought, most of the links mean to. -- Blorg 21:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect 

message: This section currently contains uncited opinions and instructions not attributed to their source. I have labelled them accordingly. Please keep this guideline in mind when describing aesthetic opinions. Thanks. -- TyrS  chatties  10:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aesthetic opinions (section 2.1) 

message: It's Blue  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longinus876 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fixed. prokaryotes (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's Blue
Talk:Golda Meir

message: Should we include "now Kyiv, UKraine"? I don't see the need to "save user time". Also, other stuff should generally be ignored, right? Thedarkknightli (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthplace in the infobox 

message: Change Reference No. 26 to archived version from: http://www.goldameir.org.il/index.php?dir=site&page=content&cs=297&langpage=heb
to: https://web.archive.org/web/20210102235455/http://www.goldameir.org.il/index.php?dir=site&page=content&cs=297&langpage=heb
as the original webpage has been deleted. DemoTony (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: . TGHL ↗ 🍁 21:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 January 2024 

message: I think this page is missing a padlock icon/protection template 125.160.115.29 (talk) 23:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Liu1126 (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 April 2024
Talk:Modal particle

message: Can we have some examples, please?
Wait, let me finish what I am going to say.
80.225.15.249 23:01 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)Dieter Simon 22:58 16.1.03
Hi,User 213.253.39.27
Re your query whether the term "Modalpartikel" exists in German, yes, this is certainly the German word for the English "modal particle".
See, for example, http://llt.msu.edu/vol5num3/mollering/, one of many websites which discusses and uses the term amongst other synonyms for modal particle.
Dieter Simon 23:53 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)Dieter Simon
:It's an interesting article. Thanks for writing it!
Article to be completed in due course.
Dieter Simon 00:09 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)
List now completed.
Dieter Simon 23:59 Jan 30, 2003 (UTC)
----
Words like these also exist in the Dutch language. But I don't know if they're called modal particles as well. Guaka 18:29, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: I have seen a few actions in my experience as a Wikipedian. but this is ridiculous. Anyone can blank an article and leave it with nothing but a stub.
Surely, the correct thing to do is to improve on the original, yes, take out and replace something by something better, and not just vandalise it. Isn't that the way we Wikipedians should act? Come on Mark and the anon, you can do better than this. Dieter Simon 00:27, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Blanking this article and leaving it as a stub is better, is it?

message: Chinese has modal particals too by the way, not just German. . ~ InsérerNombreHere (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, I was looking at an old version when I typed. Nevermind. ~ InsérerNombreHere (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I am deleting this paragraph, as I can confirm it is incorrect. If anyone needs a source to confirm that Chinese has tone changes across the sentence to convey mood, please see http://ling.cass.cn/yuyin/report/file/2006_1.pdf 76.118.179.96 (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese 

message: is an expletive also a modal particle? because then there would be a lot of bloody examples :) --ThurnerRupert (talk) 12:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[expletive]] 

message: I think we all would certainly agree that German uses modal particles quite frequently. But I would not say that they are entirely absent in English. Take for example the sentence "Now this is funny!" Here, "now" is not used because it is funny right at this moment but to express a certain feeling of surprise and contrast to other things that are not funny. A German translation of it, using four modal particles, could be "Das ist jetzt aber mal echt lustig!" (instead of just "Das ist lustig!") Not sure if we should integrate such examples here to highlight that English, in some situations at least, has modal particles, too? 80.71.142.166 (talk) 13:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  English
Talk:Queen Anne

message: Removed:
:Anne of the United Kingdom, queen of Willem IV of Nassau , daughter of George II of the United Kingdom
Willem IV was a Prince of Orange, a Count of Nassau, and a stadhouder, but as far as I can tell, he was never a king, and his wife would therefore seem not to be a queen. There was no "Kingdom" of Nassau, and the Kingdom of Holland (1806) and the Kingdom of the Netherlands (1813) are both after Willem IV's death (1751) -- Someone else 22:55 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)
This should be a normal disambiguation page. Renke
Should the plural of Queen consort not be Queens consort, rather than Queen consorts? --El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 13:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:100 BC

message: * 100 BC - Indus valley civilization - series of raids or small scale migrations by the Aryans from the North-West of Indian Sub-continent.
"I am almost positive that any invasian of the Indus Valley Civilization occurred at least a thousand years before this.  I have heard 1800 BC as a good date." User:206.61.178.50
Any opinions on this? This should go to IVC if there is no reply here. Mr. Jones 17:04, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: 1

message: 100 BC 96.225.134.128 (talk) 03:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  101 BC 

message: There is an ongoing RfC that may be of interest to editors here regarding the removal of image collages from individual year articles at . voorts (talk/contributions) 00:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on removal of image collages from Year articles
Talk:Dowsing

message: Xurizuri has found even more sources to use. I hope we can agree that they demonstrate significant views that should be included in this article. Let's focus on writing that article content. --Hipal (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tried a new location for the subsection to see how it looks. With that, I think I have done enough here for now and should take a step back to see how things shape up. Feel free to move it back if it doesn't look right. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern day devices

message: The lead currently states that "" and offers it as an alternative explanation to the pseudoscience. Yet I know a few dowsers, and most are adamant that this is exactly how dowsing works. Rather than trot out what dowsers believe, the sceptical alternative needs to get to grips with why invoking this universally accepted phenomenon is still regarded as pseudoscience. Obviously, it hinges on the fact that dowsers believe the involuntary muscular movement to be triggered by mystery forces (magnetism is a popular choice among them, as is some kind of psychic energy). So that is the bit which the lead - and the rest of the article - should explain and offer alternative mechanisms for. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That's WP:OR. --Hipal (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I am hoping that someone reading it may have come across a suitable RS confirming it. My comments on the need to tighten our presentation of the sceptical position are very much not OR. Some here may be happy with sloppy presentation, but I am not; it does scepticism a disservice. Of course, that depends on finding RS too....— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK the ideomotor reflex is, by definition, not triggered by some sort of external "energy" or whatever. If they claim that there is some sort of actual detection going on, then it is not the ideomotor effect. VdSV9•♫ 03:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily. I think there are people who believe that the dowser is somehow clairvoyant, but the information ends up not in his conscious mind, but in the subconscious, from where it influences the rod via ideomotor effect. Bollocks, of course, and it would need a source that people think that, but it invalidates the "by definition" part. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideomotor mechanism 

message: There should be at least some mention of it's being taught for forensic use per https://www.themarshallproject.org/2022/03/17/witching-dowsing-buried-bodies-police --Hipal (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forensics 

message: I just added Professor Calculus as a notable dowser. should I delete it as it is fictional, or should I just keep it?
~~~      π      (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictional dowsers
Talk:John Fogerty

message: I saw Jon Fogerty in concert tonight.  He had a Rickenbacker.  He said that it was used on the old CCR records, but he lost it in 1972 or 73.  He said that he got it back about a year ago.  That would be a good thing to put in the article, if it can be sourced.  In fact, it would be good to list his instruments. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 06:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I found an article about it. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  His Rickenbacker guitar 

message: Under the "Personal Life" section, the author has written and erroneously cited (#55) that John Fogerty and his wife Julie live in Redding, California. I do not believe that is accurate, because the cited publication makes no mention of his residence and further research indicates that he and his wife live in Hidden Valley, California. <https://www.dirt.com/entertainers/musicians/john-fogerty-house-encino-15052/>   I hesitate to make any changes to this information, but do believe the reference to his living in Redding should be removed. 
MizKatz (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Current" residence 

message: There is a good, brief quote in ‘’Fortunate Son’’ reflecting his personal discipline, non-use of drugs and expectation of professionalism in performances. The topic is only a few sentences long and I think belongs in his CCR section here rather than in the CCR main article as it is about his personal outlook. Does anyone object? …Otherwise I’ll add it. Zatsugaku (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discipline and focus on performance 

message: The military service part needs to be edited for clarity by somebody who actually was in the military.  Several aspects of the article as now written make no sense if you know how reserve components operated back then.   The part that does make sense is the assertion that he managed to slip into a reserve component and that they backdated it to predate the draft notice, but it was almost impossible to get into the Reserves too.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.27.38 (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military 

message: We should start a section on covers of Fogerty’s songs done by other artists.
-Wwallacee (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Covers
Talk:Gender role

message: — Assignment last updated by Jeyoungx (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Culture

message: — Assignment last updated by Cjsmith7 (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: University Writing 1020 Communicating Feminism MW 1 pm

message: — Assignment last updated by Tinytornado14 (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Race in America, sec 1

message: — Assignment last updated by Zisha68 (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Psychology of Gender
Talk:Cognotechnology

message: I think the loony scientist that came up with this term is at Lawrence Livermore Labs.  He was quoted in SmallTimes magazine or some such nanotechnology journal.
Normally we'd wait until the term was more common, but it seems likely that the guy will be muzzled, and the only purpose of leaking this much was to find out who else is working on this or willing to work on it.  No doubt we'll hear it was stopped orsuppressed, like the Office of Strategic Influence, but of course we'll have no way whatsoever of knowing whether it's stopped or is pursuing in some dark lab somewhere.
So, this may be the only light of day this subject sees, until they have some working model... kind of like human cloning.
----
Since the IP range of the person who wrote this page is the same as banned user User:EntmootsOfTrolls (see User:142.177.etc), I am suspicious that they wrote it. Maximus Rex 02:26, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

message: Male1979 put this page in :Category:Anti-cult terms and concepts.  I'm a bit curious on the logic behind this, since the article does not mention cults at all in any form. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  explain cat tag? 

message: This article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia.  Everything here is taken directly from a report of the supposed remarks of one Gerald Yonas, who doesn't even seem to have his own article, except for the quote from Rita Colwell which seems to be here just to demonstrate that someone else respectable has used the term.  I would rather like to know whether this term is actually in common use, and if so what it is used to refer to; unfortunately[?], a cursory Google suggests the answer to the former question is "no."  68.34.238.237 (talk) 03:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dreadful article, since 2003
Talk:List of Rastafarians

message: Removed this from the intro:
:In presenting this list, we do not mean to imply that the fact that these people are Rastafarians makes Rastafarianism any more likely--that would be a clearly bogus argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad vericundiam (see logical fallacy). ... Please note that these people have been selected for this list because their notoriety was in some way due or connected to their Rastafarianism. ... A partial list of persons believed to be Rastafarians -- Hotlorp
The Ben Hana article states he worships Ra there is no montion of Rastafarianism, the only connection seems to be dreadlocks, anyone know?
I think this should be turned into a category. What do people think? SqueakBox 04:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Neither Selassie I nor Garvey can be considered Rastafarians, SqueakBox 19:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Who is

message: Our WP:BLP policy requires sources for all living ppl on this page or they will be removed, we cant claim ppl are Rastas without a source. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources
Talk:Lists of people by belief

message: I removed the following from the article page, as it seems more like a comment on the page than a part of the content of the page:
:These lists are not exhaustive: there is no encyclopedic benefit to listing every single member of each religion. People are selected on various criteria - ideally they should have articles of their own, and be in some way noteworthy for their belief.
-Rholton 21:02, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment removed from article page 

message: Some of the people included in these lists, particularly political leaders, have been characterized as proponents of a belief simply because that belief is the preponderant one of their culture. Is listing Tojo as a Buddhist (for which I haven't seen any evidence in any case) somehow supposed to be representative or indicative of Buddhism? In what way? And then of course, before my edits just now, not even Emperor_Wu_of_Liang_China islisted, whose policies were actually informed by the teachings. Shouldn't these lists only apply when the religion had some bearing on the actual life or actions? --Reagle 11:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the point? 

message: If there is no objection, I'll split this article in two, with the second being Lists of people by ideology, which will be placed in :Category:Lists of people by ideology.--Editor2020 (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split into two articles 

message: I've nominated List of former Jews, List of former Christians, and List of former Muslims together for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former Jews.Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD 

message: I'm working on a list of Truthers and I'm unsure which section it should go under.  It's partly political, partly worldview.  I've added a few more under Worldview. JasonCarswell (talk) 19:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truthers & Worldview + Libertarians + Other Parties 

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   (t · c) buidhe 14:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: List of lists of people by belief →  – Was previously at this title before being moved twice. "Lists of X" instead of "List of lists of X" is generally preferred in titles (like Lists of people by nationality, Lists of people by occupation). Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 31 January 2021