lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Merengue

message: I removed the phrase:
<<It is similar in sound and rhythm to Salsa music>>
since there are more distinctions than similarities.
Salsa and Merengue may seem similar just like Bach an Mozart sound similar for those who don't care.
:mik_ka@hotmail.com
----
I removed the reference to meringue being a Puerto Rican invention, as there's nothing about that on the meringue page. That's assuming it was referring to the same thing? sjorford 15:32, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the navigation-type page called "Disambiguation page", with standard, simple format, not an article about Merengue, and detailed explanations do not belong here. `'Míkka 18:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Historicity of Jesus

message: Dunn, Jesus remembered, p.257-258: "the usage itself is very old and common among Greco-Roman writers. Herodotus in the fifth century BCE already speaks of 'the Syrians of Palestine'." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody is talking about the historicity of the term Palestine. We are arguing about whether the term should be used here, when the Roman name for the province was Judea until 132CE. Good day. Ironcladded (talk) 05:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You are:  According to Dunn, the name "Palestine" was already used by Greece-Roman writers in the 5th century BCE, so your argument fails. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary header #2

message: The purpose of Wikipedia is preservation of information, right? Not to argue for any religions authenticity over others, right? Imagine if any page written about any other religion was written this way. Nearly every paragraph here pretends at legitimacy while asserting a certainty that does not exist outside of Christianity. The primary argument here is that some guy who wasn’t Christian mentioned that he heard of Jesus. So that means the man must with certainty exist?  they mods here Christian and simply trying to maintain the artifice of certainty. The historicity of Jesus is a maybe at best, but this page reads as tho to say that doubting his existence is silly. It just doesn’t seem like an unbiased encyclopedia entry 2600:1007:B0AF:CE83:D9F7:706C:7D6F:B276 (talk) 02:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is not good chronicling
Talk:Jesus in Christianity

message: The redirect Jesus as Christ and Messiah 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.  Veverve (talk) 12:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Jesus as Christ and Messiah]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The redirect Jesus as Christ 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.  Veverve (talk) 12:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Jesus as Christ]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:George W. Bush 2000 presidential campaign

message: Notice: This is a daughter article of George W. Bush - It was taken from the mother page made to alleviate the size of the older article.
WhisperToMe 07:25, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: In keeping with other campaign articles, this article is reclassified from Top to Low importance within WikiProject United States. Lagrange613 (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Low importance

message: I remember a woman named Crowley who spoke for the Bush campaign during the campaign and the dispute with Florida but why isn't her name listed under Key People. 110.33.138.212 (talk) 04:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide a reliable source to back up your claim. Memory based off of something that happened 20 YEARS ago isn't reliable. Plus, it's original research. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crowley
Talk:Percy Shaw

message: The cat's eye road reflector is a simple device that has saved countless lives. These inexpensive glass and rubber reflectors are set on the roadway at regular intervals, and help motorists see where the road is at night. Each of the cat's eyes reflects oncoming light, acting like lights set into the road. This device was invented in 1933 by Percy Shaw, from Yorkshire, England. He invented it after he had been driving on a dark, winding road on a foggy night; he was saved from going off the side of the hill by a cat, whose eyes reflected his car's lights. Shaw's invention mimicked the reflectivity of a cat's eyes. Because of his invention, Shaw was awarded the Order of the British Empire ("OBE") by Queen Elizabeth of England in 1965.
I remember seeing a BBC TV feature back in the 1960s (the "Tonight" program, I think) which claimed that while Percy Shaw invented the self-cleaning mechanism for cat's eyes, he did not invent the reflecting cat's eye itself, this being an earlier relatively unsuccessful invention. 82.71.74.190 13:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I moved the comment from IP 220.253.195.86 to the discussion page:
:the story i heard on a school excursion in the late 70s or early 80s was that percy shaw needed to navigate home from the pub up a steep hair pinned road at night so he made cats eyes so he can navigate home after a few beers. 220.253.195.86, 06:29, 20.August 2008.
--DrJunge (talk) 06:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: IP 220.253.195.86

message: http://www.catseyes.com/freddie-lee-biography.asp  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.133.124.13 (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that this web page was "created by Freddie Lee's daughters". Professional looking job, but is there an independent, reliable source that carries this information? --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Earlier inventor
Talk:Sanity check

message: In the banking program section, the part "and that deposits or purchases are sane in fitting in with patterns established by historical data" is not a sanity check. This is a reflection of what the banking program might consider likely or expected behavior, but not impossible. A sanity check determines if a result is simply not possible, it does not have any bearing on an entirely possible, however unlikely,  result.--Chilipepper987 (talk) 04:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banking example 

message: The redirect Sniff test 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.  Utopes (talk / cont) 05:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Sniff test]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Full Gospel Baptist Church Fellowship

message: Which regions?andycjp (talk) 06:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Japan

message: This article has been tagged as unsourced since July 2010.  Unless it is sourced it should be considered for deletion.  This unsourced article has come to light since it is apparently about the organization that has consecrated embattled Senior Pastor Eddie Long as a "Bishop" within their congregation.  Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 04:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it should be deleted.  It can be improved.  The reason there is little citation is because of the youth of the organization.  There's not much written about it but it is a significant group as it concerns doctrine and relationship to the National Baptist Convention.Rdaenot (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

text: I don't understand why you would delete everything and not give the chance to source the material since there seems to be, as of late, an interest in the article.   If your purpose was to delete the article based on, as you cite, their bestowing upon Long the style of Bishop, open forum is the best way to truth about an organization or intity which I thought wikipedia was about--providing information.   The article as it was could have been sourced and improved which I was working on.  The organization is not going to go away because you dislike aspects of it but if information is stifled then you might just be advancing what you were trying to delete based on the prevailing ignorance of many.  The article could have been improved.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdaenot (talk • contribs) 15:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced for almost a year, candidate for deletion
Talk:List of harpsichordists

message: Shouldn't anyone appearing in most "List of foo" articles on wikipedia, generally be notable enough for a wikipedia article? --Aim Here 19:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lots of red names

message: Who should be included in this list? I have removed some names (mostly in the pop world) who cannot (IMHO admittedly) really be called harpsichordists because this is not their principal instrument. They may be called 'keyboard players' but the harpsichord does not predominate, and I think it has to for one to be included here. Nick Michael 14:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a harpsichordist? 

message: McCoy Tyner does not belong on this list. Just because he played some harpsichord on one of his albums doesn't render him a harpsichordist. His main instrument is, obviously, the piano. It also seems that he never actually studied harpsichord, so I suggest we remove him. any objections?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinici7 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  McCoy tyner - harpsichordist? 

message: It appears that someone or several contributors have erroneously put harp players on the list. I have started to weed the wrong entries out.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ortgies (talk • contribs) 08:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove harpists (players of the harp) from the list
Talk:Ford Maverick

message: I am going to give the other, non-Ford cars with the Maverick name their own pages. Someone do a disambiguation, I dunno how. --DOHC Holiday 02:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The other models that were called Maverick were rebadged versions of other vehicles, keep that in mind. --Sable232 16:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Mavericks 

message: I disagree with the disambig page tag. The other mavericks were basically rebadges and don't warrant entire articles. I would move that information to the main articles of those cars which are rebadged, and make a brief reference to it here. I'm going to give a week for comments, and if nobody objects, make those changes. Cheers! - superβεεcat  22:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Besides, this was an improperly done disambig anyway, so it needs to be reverted. --Sable232 02:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How was it improper? You could move this disambig to Ford Maverick (disambig) and the car article here, but do note that to a large group of readers, the Maverick is one of the SUVs - I wasn't aware of the existence of the car Ford Maverick, as probably most of the non-North-American readers. I'd keep the disambig here. PrinceGloria 07:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: PS. Actually the first comment is in agreement with what I've done, so I guess I am only talking to Sable :D  —Preceding unsigned comment added by PrinceGloria (talk • contribs) 07:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it was improperly done because the actual Maverick page should have been moved, not copied and pasted, losing the page history. --Sable232 01:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, so you're talking about the move from Ford Maverick to Ford Maverick (car)... Wasn't me, I just came later to revamp the disambig and get rid of the redunant Ford Maverick (SUV) - I am hereby denying any responsibility for the incorrectly executed move :D PrinceGloria 05:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambig
Talk:Brian Coffey

message: *This article is part of WikiProject Poetry. See that page for further information. 
*This article is part of WikiProject Irish literature. See that page for further information.
Hi, nice article. Just a couple of pointers: I think it is important to make clear in the leading paragraph the nature and importance of the subject. I grabbed a line from one of the web pages and a line from the bottom of your text to illustrate what I mean; you will probably want to tweak it.
Also in wikipedia:  -->  (two single quotes, easier to type!)
:-- Viajero 14:30, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Wikipedia talk:Measurements Debate

message: I don't see why this is turned into a US vs Europe discussion. Metric system is not only used by European countries, but by basically the whole world, except for the US.
And the UK. and Burma. And Liberia.
:—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.202.29.180 (talk • contribs)  11:22, 25 August 2006
Customary is official for US, UK, Liberia, Burna. No reason to exclude, say, Rankine from the scientific pages. 72.74.136.49 (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Basil Bunting

message: Hi, more of the same kind of changes. I'll let you add titles to the ext links. FYI: The format is: 
:[ URL title ]
Note: single []s
:-- Viajero 14:47, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: Given the brevity of both the main article, and the one on Briggflatts, wouldn't it make sense to combine them? Rwood128 (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Briggflatts 
Talk:Abimelech

message: An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Abimelech article, and they have been placed in a handy list for your convenience. — 203.134.197.133 23:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:LinkBot/suggestions/Abimelech|Link suggestions]] 

message: Is the Abimelech Society, a small group apparently devoted to the destruction of Gideon Bibles, noteworthy or encyclopedic? - Smerdis of Tlön 18:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abimelech Society?? 

message: Not sure this is the primary topic, possibly the son of Gideon is. PatGallacher (talk) 15:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  primary topic 

message: Please use this space to discuss the proposed merge of Avimelekh into this article. Pinging , who initiated the proposal. Joyous! Noise! 02:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Klbrain (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal
Talk:Graded ring

message: I have removed the disambiguation link to Graded School since the latter is a nick-name for a school in Brazil, and is not referred to in any way as "Graded algebra".  The article does not even mention the term algebra.  The concept is unrelated to that of this article, and is unlikely to be a useful disambiguation.  This disambiguation smacks of internal spam, and I need to see some clear evidence that some significant number of Wikipedia readers might be confused before I am willing to see this disambiguation added.  For more details, I would encourage editors to see the Wikipedia disambiguation guidelines for when disambiguation should be performed.  Silly rabbit (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graded school 

message: "... is homogeneous if for every element a ∈ , the homogeneous parts of a are also contained in..." Homogeneous parts need to be defined. Rschwieb (talk) 01:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is confusing. Is it clear now? ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 05:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yep, those edits were helpful. Rschwieb (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homogeneous parts? 

message: I'm probably being thick but I don't see how a ring can be defined to be a direct sum of abelian groups.  That takes care of the ring addition, but what of its multiplication? 86.185.161.165 (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarified. D.Lazard (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm probably being thick...
Talk:Identity document

message: In the beginning of the United States section of the article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_document#United_States), change "...U.S. citizens and nationals may obtain passports or U.S. passport cards if they chose to, but this is optional and other alternatives are more popular." 
to "...U.S. citizens and nationals may obtain passports or U.S. passport cards if they choose to, but this is optional and other alternatives are more popular." Doporto06 (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Jamedeus (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2024 

message: Change the link to Polish (pl-PL) counterpart of the article
FROM https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dow%C3%B3d_osobisty ("dowód osobisty" = government-backed ID card - a specific type of an identity document)
TO https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dokument_to%C5%BCsamo%C5%9Bci ("dokument tożsamości" = literally "identity document") KSetlak (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: --Ferien (talk) 15:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

text: @KSetlak: : inter-language links changed on this article's Wikidata entry by merging Q2072174 into it. Show this change on Wikidata. penguinencounter2@enwiki:~/talk/contrib$ 15:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2024
Talk:Octodontidae

message: Does Octodontidae mean that the animals in this family have eight teeth? If so, could that be mentioned on the page?
Probably not.  The authoritative University of Michigan site states that "the cheekteeth are flat crowned, hypsodont, and distinctively "8"-shaped due to single labial and lingual folds", and I suspect that is the etymology - but speculative etymology is a trap for the unwary.
seglea at 1807utc on 031112
:The original description of Pipanacoctomys and Salinoctomys (nl:Pipanacoctomys and nl:Salinoctomys, if you can understand it) (Mares et al., 2000), gave the shape of those cheekteeth as the etymology for "octo" in both names, so it seems probable that that's the etymology for the other family members too. Ucucha (talk) 12:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Sieges of Stirling Castle

message: To me, this doesn't seem a good name for an article -- particularly since there's no link to it from Stirling Castle.  Could we maybe give it some more thought?
* Yes, I created the title because it was a bullet point in Wars of Scottish Independence. I would propose "Seige of Stirling Castle" Gmh04 09:29, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: also, the box is about one siege, but obviously there were several, as implied by the box title "sieges"...dave souza 23:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

message: The name says “Sieges of Stirling Castle”, though only really gives detail on one of the sieges, with another of the sieges having its own article. I think it would be easier and better to simply change the name of this article to Siege of Stirling Castle (1304) and make this article about that specific siege. If anyone wants then they can create other articles for the other sieges SamMcDermott (talk) 18:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Name
Talk:Mother Teresa/Groundrules

message: This is a proposed set of Groundrules for the editing of this article. I am proposing these as a possible way forward.
:Editing needs to be consensual. It is waste of everybody's time for edits to be repeatedly reverted and text to be repeatedly deleted and reincluded. It also gets us all nowhere.
:Many articles about religion and politics get very heated. This is normal. In our attempt to get a Neutral Point of View we need to listen to both praise and criticism and objectively include both in the article. This doesn't mean that the article has to be 50% criticism - the amount of space given to the criticism needs to be agreed.
Practically:
#Before you do a non-trivial edit to the article discuss it on the talk page. Major edits without discussion will be reverted.
#Do not insult your fellow wikipedians by name calling or breaking Godwin's Law. Be charitable. Both sides are acting out of belief and not malice. Assume good faith.
#Stay calm. 
Secretlondon 18:01, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)
It seems that much of the dispute is not so much about individual edits, but over the overall structure, and how much space should be given to positive vs negative opinions - is there a way to up-front this discussion separately from discussion about individual edits?2toise 22:15, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Talk:Time-based currency

message: Over the course of the next couple of weeks I will undertake to edit this page drawing on the experience I have working with Time Banks (the non-profit organization). My intention is not to change the page into an advertisement for Time Banks--as it seems to have been in the past--but to draw attention to some of the philosophical issues surrounding Time-based currency while providing case studies drawn from the various implementations of Time Banking in the U.S. The page currently strikes me as a somewhat dumbed-down treatment of the subject, one of the outcomes of which is the "excessively positive outlook" mentioned above. Enkidu35 (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Changes 

message: One hour equals one service credit, but why not 2 or whatever number of service credits? It would still be time based currency. Actually I'm planning to greate a time bank (LETS hybrid), where 1 service credit is 15 minutes. Teilolondon (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why one hour? 

message: Text and references copied from Cincinnati Time Store to Time-based currency  See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Attribution

message: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Time < Is it relate to this concept or anything? Should we refer to it as pop culture example?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThainaYu (talk • contribs) 11:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this article has anything relate with In Time move? 

message: note the 3 different explanations of the phrase "time banking" (in various, apparently synonymous, capitalization styles) across multiple subheadings. this to me feels very confusing, as if the same "definition" was copypasted from various sources without actually reading the article first... might need some rewriting? --87.146.126.155 (talk) 16:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  article structure might require some reorganizing
Talk:Hunstanton

message: Fixed the general sloppiness of the page... Aronjjxi (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Barnacle Bill (1957) (starring Alec Guinness) was shot at Hunstanton Pier, which was demolished on screen as part of the plot. It is alleged the pier was built in 1895.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnacle_Bill_(1957_film)#Production  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.247.177 (talk) 03:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pier used in Movie Barnacle Bill
Talk:Pennsylvania library system

message: so, how is this different to any other public library system? Morwen 21:32, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find any evidence that this is exists as an entity. KatieBU (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can't find any evidence that this exists at all, save for one mention in 2003. So I nominated it for deletion. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled