lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Bloc voting

message: From time to time I come across articles like this, that talk about a thing without ever telling you what it is.
I'll quote two bits of the first paragraph to illustrate:
1. Bloc voting (or block voting) refers to a class of voting systems which can be used to elect several representatives from a single multimember constituency.
:From this we know that it's a type of voting system, and that it can be used in conjunction with multimember constituencies. Doesn't tell us what it is though.
2. There are several variations of bloc voting [but] they all produce similar results
:What is similar about the results? What do the variations have in common that makes them examples of block voting?
An article that doesn't even define what it's about might as well be deleted.
Ben Arnold 03:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your point is well taken.  This article could use an example section just as all the other voting systems articles can.  I'll make one in the next few days.  Scott Ritchie 07:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yeah, but what ''is'' it? 

message: When I removed the voting wikilink behind the Robert's Rules link in the Bloc voting article, I should have reset it to Robert's Rules, as you did. Thanks for doing that.  ~ Parlirules (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I should have thought of that. 

message: This article covers three different topics that should probably be split into separate articles: plurality-at-large voting, preferential bloc voting, and voting as a bloc.  The latter should probably be merged into a section of voting bloc, however the former two are different enough with regards to history, usage, and counting to warrant the split. Barring objection I'll be bold and do this myself. Scott Ritchie (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I propose a split
Talk:Nuremberg trials

message: I dont think this is near obvious or major enough to warrant a tag in the article, and Im certainly not an experienced enough editor to make a full claim of bias here, but while reading the section on the prosecutions and defences I couldnt help but feel like their structure and wording lightly (that is to say, quite subtly) favors the defence and guides the reader towards believing the defence was treated unfairly. I was hoping a more experienced editor could take a look and give their thoughts. Googleguy007 (talk) 12:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: specifically what in the article is leading you to this conclusion? (t · c) buidhe 13:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Light pro-defendant bias? 

message: The article states that Hartley Shawcross gave an opening speech on the 12th of December: "The British prosecution covered the charge of crimes against peace, [...] On 12 December, Shawcross gave the opening speech..." in the 'American and British Prosecution' section of 'Course of the trial'. However, the Avalon Project's transcript of the trials (linked in the article itself) lists Shawcross's speech as having taken place on the 4th of December instead (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/imtproc_v3menu.asp). At least one other source found online supports this date (the webpage of Rober H. Jackson Center - https://www.roberthjackson.org/nuremberg-event/british-opening-statement-2/). As the other dates in the article appear to line up with Avalon Project, this may be a mistake caused by the fact that 4th of December was the twelfth day of the trials. Jko.366 (talk) 01:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of the British prosecution's opening speech 

message: I propose merging Subsequent Nuremburg Trials into Nuremburg trials. I think that since most of the content of the quite short Subsequent Nuremberg Trials article already exists under the heading: "Subsequent Nuremberg Trials"  in the article of Nuremberg Trials, a merge would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Nuremberg Trials, and would in fact enhance the main article, which is notably more popular between the two. ShoBDin (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose adding more content about the subsequent trials to this article would be UNDUE. (t · c) buidhe 17:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal
Wikipedia talk:Supported Software

message: I am currently, together with User:Sj, establishing the page Wikipedia:Tools. The goal is to given an overview of tools for browsing and editing the wikipedia. I would suggest to integrate the contents of this page into Wikipedia:Tools and put up a redirect here. Otherwise, it would be important to coordinate the contents of this two pages, to avoid overlap and confusion. -- 217.82.181.205 23:59, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Tools]]
Talk:Root directory

message: Most recent versions of Windows have the "Desktop" (phyiscally, a subdirectory of the user's home directory (e.g. C:\Documents and Settings\<username>\Desktop)) as root of the hierarchy. The "workspace" (where the drives are mounted) is a subfolder of that.
This does not seem to be actually implemented in terms of file paths, though, so I don't know how noteworthy that development is.
To me it seems like another half-assed attempt to copy an existing design (like DOS, JScript, etc.), but the point is that there are clear tendencies towards a more Unixy way of doing things. — Ashmodai (talk · contribs) 07:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows "Workspace"/Desktop 

message: Can anybody include a section about miniroot.gz ?. Thanks in advance --Mac 08:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This website is dead/no longer active. Senator2029 (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miniroot.gz 

message: Should Master Directory redirect here or anywhere else or be a disambiguation page?90.190.225.121 (talk) 08:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Master directory

message: Dear Wikipedia community,
please receive my most respectful greeting. Right now I am refreshing my abilities with Linux and I have to say that I liked this article very much. Particularly the section about the directories / and /root which (disgracefully?) have the same name. Despite the fact it is a long custom they share the same name, is there a way to ... I don't know, create a petition so they have different names? I have an idea but I would like to know where/how to expose it.
Thank you very much.
George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 06:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Directories / and /root
Talk:Japanese era name

message: I think it might be good to include that there is significant opposition to the use of nengo in Japan, as it is seen as a symbol of the imperial system. For example, the Japan Communist Party has always opposed the use of nengo. Those opposed to the Japanese imperial system (kimigayo, hinomaru, etc), also tend to oppose the use of nengo. It is frequently tied in with feelings that Hirohito bears responsibility for WWII. --Westwind273 (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposition 

message: Because this section has nothing to do with the era names as such, I think it should be split into a new article.  There's no sense in conflating these two concepts of the Japanese calendar.  (Either they should be split or the article should be renamed "Japanese year-labelling systems", etc.) Bueller 007 (talk) 07:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Support an expand; alternatively, merge section into Japanese calendar. 75.154.117.75 (talk) 02:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Support; I came here to read about Japanese Imperial year. Era name does NOT explain it. Needs an expansion, too. -210.174.17.173 (talk) 02:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imperial year section 

message: I know this subject probably doesn't come up often, but what is the practice concerning writing future dates with the year in nengō format?  Just keep adding (e.g. 平成５０年)? 71.161.42.209 (talk) 06:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we just keep adding. See this estimate of future population. Oda Mari (talk) 14:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future years? 

message: The Heisei period started on January 8, 1989. So 1989 = Heisei 1. How are dates described right before the start of the era, for example January 7 1989? -DePiep (talk) 13:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: In the event that there's an era change, dates before the changeover use the old era name and dates after use the new one. So for 1989, it would have gone from January 7, Shouwa 64 to January 8, Heisei 1. Similarly, when the Emperor abdicates this year the date will go from April 30, Heisei 31 to May 1, [new era] 1. Sonictrey (talk) 04:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retro dates 

message: This is a rather confusing statement. Abdications were very common in older days. I think that should be rephrased and checked since when it's considered not done to abdicate. 
Otherwise the sentence is actually rather wrong and "the one time" should be omitted. Kennin (talk) 12:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  One time abdication
Talk:Chinese nationalism

message: First sentence: "Chinese nationalism (simplified Chinese: 中国民族主义; traditional Chinese: 中國民族主義; pinyin: Zhōngguó mínzú zhǔyì) is a form of nationalism in both mainland China (the People's Republic of China) and Taiwan (Republic of China) which asserts that the Chinese people are a nation and promotes the cultural and national unity of all Chinese people." 
This is a circular definition. Nationalism is an attempt to assert and define an nation/nationality, and in this case, that's who "Chinese people" are - you can't use it to define itself. This is doubly complicated by the fact that in English, "Chinese" might refer to the PRC, greater China, ethnicity (when they actually mean Han), or cultural identity.
The rest of the intro paragraphs might be salvageable, but are unsourced, questionable ("These last-minute efforts were best exemplified by Liang Qichao, a Qing Dynasty reformer who failed to reform the Qing government in 1896 and was later expelled to Japan, where he began work on his ideas of Chinese nationalism." - what, he just made it up out of thin air? No connection to the anti-Qing sentiment of the Ming Dynasty remnants?), or not neutral ("helped further strengthen and aggrandize a sense of Chinese national identity" - aggrandize implies outsized, as if there's a "right" amount of national identity. 
As we're talking about a concept living in the consciousness of people here, I think it's important to recognize there are multiple strains of thought (some of them more significant than others, some of them competing). There's also a great deal of historical events, but the reader is left trying to piece them together to construct an idea of what Chinese nationalism actually is instead of being given an overview. I further question the importance given to some events/topics. Lastly, there appears to be a dearth of Chinese sources - surely Chinese people have their own writings on the topic? 108.51.117.93 (talk) 08:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure there are Chinese sources. You would think in an article about Chinese nationalism, which is inherently a controversial subject guaranteed to have multiple perspectives, some of these sources would be used to provide insight. Too bad they are largely deprecated. 136.142.159.97 (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lacking in basic definition and conceptual grounding
Talk:Shovel

message: I am not a Wikipedia editor, I just really wanna acknowledge one of the best dad jokes I’ve seen:
“The later invention of purpose-built shovels was a ground-breaking development.”  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.117.29 (talk) 04:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big Shout, Such Dad 

message: Since when do axes have serrated edges...?
However: missing sides or edges don't necessarily seem to make a spade.
Regards, <TT>F</TT>rank  <TT>W ~@) R</TT> 08:37 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC).
Hmm. So what is the definitive difference? Or is there just a spectrum of things that some people call "spades" and others "shovels"? The Anome
Ok, let's try this:
* flat blade => spade
* blade with sides or concavity => shovel
Is that right? The Anome
No! Ask a gardener. A spade is used primarily for spading - breaking up dirt so that there are no clumps, prior to planting. As such they require a point (just like you see in the "spade" in a deck of cards). Shovels are for shoveling - moving material. As such, shovels have a flat edge, so you can slide underneath the material. Chas zzz brown 20:51 Mar 11, 2003 (UTC)
:It's true that a spade is primarily for spading (and usually has a point) and that many shovels have flat edges, but it is not universally true - some shovels have rounded blades. I'm pretty sure that the technical distinction is that a spade is designed to be pushed into the ground with the aid of a foot. The problem is that there are lots of compromise and cross-over versions of the tools that try to serve both needs yet we only have the two words.  And (at least in the US) they're all sold as "shovels" regardless of their real purpose.  Rossami 21:36, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL!  I'll try to restrain myself.  Elf | Talk 14:58, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serrated Edges?? 

message: "Unfortunately, despite Taylor's valid insights about the possibility for applying science to manual labour (including shoveling and the lifting and carrying of heavy objects) and his valid insights about the inequality of talents between individuals, he did not really respect the human dignity of all workers, and tended to be contemptuous of people with low intelligence."
This seems to have gotten a bit off topic! GeneCallahan (talk) 19:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the sentence, plus another below it that seemed to contradict itself. I'm surprised that the sentence you quoted remained intact for so long, apart from the removal of "Unfortunately" at the beginning which violates WP:EDITORIAL. DesertPipeline (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Does This Have to Do with Shovels?
Talk:Boston Massacre

message: This point was tagged for clarification 2 1/2 years ago. It seems to say that Loyalist lawyers would not defend a British soldier. This doesn't make sense without further explanation. I am tagging it anew as non sequitur. If it hasn't been explained a month from now, I will delete the portion of the sentence which doesn't make sense. Humpster (talk) 06:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lawyers 

message: The redirect Boston Incident has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Elli (talk | contribs) 02:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Boston Incident]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus

message: I suggest a new topic.Phage therapy for MRSA
Phage is an extremely good way to combat MRSA as shown by the fact that, until 1991, MRSA had was low(0.2%) in Denmark.Se https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2016506/ This was attributed to the phage-type complex 83A. 
Phage therapy for MRSA is the subject of a patent in 2001  https://patents.google.com/patent/US20040146490A1/en although the Danish observation from 1991 is not mentioned.Spgough (talk) Spgough (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  MRSA phage therapy 

message: This article is visited a lot, but it has a rather weak entry. The section "signs and symptoms" first rightly describe Staphylococcus aureus as a commensal bacteria, permanently colonising a considerable proportion of humans. Then, it goes on to describe skin infections? There are no "signs or symptoms" to separate MRSA from other bacterial infections, the reader who finds this site should not be mislead to think "MRSA" is a disease. 
The section "Risk factors" also suffer under the same lack of understanding, in my opinion. Risk factors of what? Carriage? Carriage of S. aureus or carriage of MRSA? Infections? Infections of MRSA or infections of any Gram-positive cocci? The (now slightly outdated) list of references are just more or less random articles where random groups are found statistically significant for either of the conditions I mention above. There are hundreds, if not thousands of other articles like that. The list could be endless with narrowly defined groups "at risk" for MRSA-infection-or-carriage. Wikipedia should instead focus on the concept. What is "risk" when it comes to MRSA? Why are some humans carrying S. aureus and some not, why are some of those resistant and some not, why to some of those bacteria end up invading the tissues and causing an infection? 
A minor comment is that the "research" section randomly lists some different research projects. Why are those chosen and not the thousands of others? Research into novel treatments targeting resistant infections should be listed in more general articles, and not specifically in the MRSA article. The treatment against MRSA is already well known, it's choosing a different active antibiotic...
I'm new to Wikipedia and wouldn't know where to start fixing this, but with some guidance I could contribute. Epianders (talk) 07:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carriage vs infection
Talk:Cain and Abel

message: They seem rather pointless to me, and I think the article would look slightly better if we removed them. We can keep the images. Opinions? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Cain/Abel infoboxes 

message: See . Opinions, editors? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a KJOM argument. There may be times when there's a good reason it use it, but those are exceptional and I wouldn't use it. Doug Weller talk 21:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is KJV version better in this article? 

message: https://cnc.fandom.com/wiki/Kane
https://cnc.fandom.com/wiki/Cain
command and conquer Tiberium storyline has references to this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.80.53.91 (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello! The threshold for inclusion is that the appearance of (and biblicalness of) C and/or A in this game has been noted in a WP:Reliable source independent of its maker. This excludes usergenerated stuff like wikis (fandom), selfpublished stuff like blogs etc (see WP:USERG and WP:SPS). A decent book, magazine or newssite/paper could be good enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video game references (command and conquer) 

message: The redirect Hevel has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  J947 † edits 03:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Creating jealousy between two siblings by having a preference seems odd. Shouldn’t God like both sacrifices since they are his children (as we are all)? Does he not love them equally? I’m very curious to find out how God may have been the first motive for the first murder! Peace and love! 🙏🏾❤️ SeekingMindinMud (talk) 02:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Hevel]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The recently inserted paragraph primarily consists of speculative interpretations from few scholars and thus not suitable for the lede. The content as it is in the Origins section is ample and satisfactory. StarkReport (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:Undue content for the lede.
Talk:William Boyce (composer)

message: I haven't yet found more than two sources that agree on Boyce's birth and death dates. There's a very wide range of dates given out there. For the moment, I've put in what allclassical.com says, because it's at least a modern source, and (generally) reliable. I'll check in Grove and see what that says next time I get a chance. --Camembert
There is no known source containing Boyce's birth date. Burney misleading writes that Boyce was 69 at the time of his death, however parochial registers show he was baptised on 11th September 1711, considering all his siblings were baptised within 4-10 days of their birth, modern scholars assume the same applies to Boyce. The last edition of Grove I checked has his birth year as 1710, date unknown so I would check their sources before citing their entry. 92.23.45.35 (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The inscription on his grave in the crypt of St Paul's Cathedral also refers to his having died at age 69, but that's usually disregarded.  --  JackofOz (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Given all the conflicting information, and the lack of definite proof, it behoves us to not simply pick what we think is the likely date and assert it without qualification, as if it were universally accepted as factual, but to have a note explaining the different sources and saying why we've chosen the one we have.  --  JackofOz (talk) 09:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, given that he was born when England was using the Julian calendar but died after the introduction of the Gregorian calendar (1752), we need to make some statement about whether 11 September 1711 is a Julian date or a Gregorian date.  --  JackofOz (talk) 09:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Although Boyce's productive life fits pretty squarely in the early Classical era, wasn't his output stylistically Baroque?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.82.96 (talk) 22:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and no. Stylistically he was conservative for the period in which he lived. As the article states, his chamber-music output includes trio sonatas, which is a form associated with the Baroque. However, he also composed a set of eight symphonies, a form more characteristic of the Classical period. The Category of "Classical-era composers" assigned to this article, which I suppose is what prompted your question, is apt since (as you yourself point out) he lived in the period referred to. I would say that, from a stylistic point of view, Boyce would be plausibly described as a "transitional" composer.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classical composer?
Talk:Adrian Olivares

message: Wait! Isnt the word Blond more popularly known as Blond and not blonde worldwide?
Antonio Sex Alcohol and Joy Martin
:To be honest with you, I'm not sure. Change it back if you'd like, the spelling isn't that important. -- Notheruser 23:58 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)
:this is one of the adjectivces in English that has a masculine and feminine form.  Men are blond, women are blonde.  Any other usage is incorrect.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.46.56.198 (talk) 05:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:The Green River Killer

message: There has been a arrest in the 20 year old case of The Green River Killer, His name is Gary Leon Ridgeway. He was one of the top suspects for the police over the years and they matched his DNA to the DNA taken from the crime sene years ago and matched it to his.
He's only been charged in 4 of the murders, so far.  -- Zoe
This article contains no dates. Reading it, I have no idea if it happened in the 1870s, 1920s, 1990s....please give some details about setting. Kingturtle 02:32 May 14, 2003 (UTC)
----
I read part of that prosecution document linked on this page....it's disturbing.  dave 04:38, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)