lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament

message: Given that the source for the "convention" is 60 years old, that the book hasn't been updated in 40 years, that it is entirely likely that more modern translations have come out (and the fact that one of the translators, W. F. Albright, has seen his methods discredited in the intervening years), it would seem highly likely that this "convention" no longer continues.
Regardless, I have taken the issue to WP:RSN. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Last I checked, there was no convention for updating outdated information contained in 60yo book reviews, even if the author of the review was still alive to do so. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference to "ANET" here] would seem to settle the matter, although it's hardly necessary. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 15:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hardly. (i) It does not reference the numbered "texts within this volume". (ii) Counterexamples such as this would indicate that the convention (even to the extent of giving the contracted title) is by no means universal. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed the text to make it clear that the convention is not compulsory. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not recall anyone in any source saying that any convention was "compulsory" so that seems a tad ... Collect (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hrafn above raised the question of whether the convention was "universal", and that's what I was referring to. I do know what I'm talking about, unlike you who seem to think that ANET is a "journal". SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I emended the reference to "work."   Seeing a large number of "volumes" made me think that they were issued in some sort of organized sequence, and I noted the use of "Journal" in the prior sentence, making that error.  OTOH, you should read AGF and NPA. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell, there is only a single volume, and there are many translated texts within this single volume, and it is these texts that are numbered. I'm altering the article to reflect this. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current "convention" practice
Talk:Annales Xantenses

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Annals of xanten. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Rodney Baggins (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Annals of xanten listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Roo

message: At present, a Disney image of Roo is included on this page, which I find offensive, as Disney's adaptations of the Winnie-the-Pooh stories are dramatically different from A.A. Milne's originals, and IMO awful.  Can someone please find an original Ernest H. Shepard illustration of Roo to include instead?   -- DBooth (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ernest H. Shepard's illustration of Roo please 

message: "Little Kangaroo" redirects here. 86.42.84.81 (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2023
Talk:From the Holy Mountain

message: The last section of this article reads more like a personal book review, which is not appropriate for Wikipedia. For example, who is to say that something is "[p]articularly fascinating", or that Dalrymple is "very good"? It's fine for us to quote (good) sources giving their assessments, but we as editors should not be passing our own judgements. Loganberry (Talk) 00:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marked a couple of POV comments
Talk:Uthiripookkal

message: I created this page less than 30 minutes before speedy deletion tag was placed :(. I was editing the page at that time. I am a new wikipedian, please suggest what to do next. 
Karthik 01:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article was tagged with a proposed deletion, not a speedy deletion. In that case, any editor—even the article's creator—may remove the tag if contesting the deletion. If other editors feel the article does not meet core guidelines, it may still be nominated for deletion through an "articles for deletion" discussion. Next time you establish a page, you may find it helpful to place a notification at the top of the article that the page is under construction. I myself use . (You can see what this looks like in action over here, if you'd like, in an article I was working on yesterday.) Note that it is asking a favor of other editors not to create edit conflicts, but it can be a valuable way of letting editors know that you do not intend what they see to be the article's final form. I don't doubt that the editor who tagged this article for deletion did so under the belief that you had finished with it and left it with insufficient context to survive. :) --Moonriddengirl 03:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had no idea what it meant. Thanks for your help. :) Karthik 06:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Invisible Republic (book)

message: I suggest that the Old Weird America article be merged here.  There is very little content in that article, and it is more appropriate that it be discussed in the context of the book from which the term came, rather than separately.  I am frankly surprised it has survived this long as an independent entity. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 05:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal
Talk:The Last Mughal

message: There is an hour-long talk available on-line in which Dalrymple gives an overview and summarizes the topics of the book: 
http://www.gresham.ac.uk/event.asp?PageId=45&EventId=755 
I think that this would be an obvious and unquestionable addition to this page. (I only don't put it up myself as there is a possible conflict-of-interest as I am connected with Gresham College, where the lecture was given).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesfranklingresham (talk • contribs) 15:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: External Link Suggestion

message: The book was published by different publishers around the world. There is only one publisher at infobox. --Vssun (talk) 01:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publishers
Talk:Eupatorieae

message: I did not understand the edit made by Kingdon on 30Jan2009 because i am new to Wikipedia. Today, i figured out how to read the history page. I would like to thank him for the helpful comments he made at  that time.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.171.106.243 (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to hear you found the history. This talk page is a good place to ask any questions you might have about the article, to propose changes, or ask/suggest how to do various things in wikipedia. There are also a lot of people who are knowledgable about plants and about wikipedia at WP:PLANTS. You also might want to think about [ creating an account].  This is not required, but see Wikipedia:Why create an account?.  In particular, because an account lets us see which edits were made by you as opposed to other people, it can ease collaboration. Kingdon (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Dysaesthesia aethiopica

message: Propose merge. Three small articles on essentially same topic prevents a clear picture. Articles are split off from main preventing a whole picture from emerging: 
*Dysaethesia Aethiopica (this article) + 
*Drapetomania + 
*Samuel A. Cartwright. 
The effect is to trivialize all three articles.  --Mattisse 02:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Cartwright himself is certainly important enough for his own article.  Drapetomania seems to have a life of its own beyond Cartwright's writings, do it probably should have its own. I merged Dysaethesia Aethiopica with Cartwright's article, but someone else gave it its own article. That's fine with me. It is more important that lots of things on WP. The Drapetomania article should be expanded with more information on its ongoing importance.  Cartwright's article should be expanded with more information on his other contributions beyond these two "disorders."  Basic information on the "disorders" and their history should continue to be included in Cartwright's article. That's my opinion. I don't think anyone is trying to trivialize anything. Steve Dufour 16:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still wonder what she means by "trivialize." Steve Dufour, you have to keep in mind her earlier actions with Drapetomania. She tried to have it deleted in order to, in essence, trivialize it because she didn't want it to corrupt the legacy of Psychiatry. And I'm not jumping to conclusions here; she said it. - Cyborg Ninja 21:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems clear to me that Mattisse is saying that three short articles may not be as effective as one longer article; that the shorter articles "trivialize" their subjects, but a single article would produce a "clear picture" of Cartwright and his diseases. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge
Talk:List of City Homicide episodes

message: Even though we're into Season 3 right now, there are still episodes showing up from Season 2. Right now I'm watching City Homicide Season 2 Episode 19, "House of Horrors", which isn't listed at all as an episode here. Anyone able to shed some insight on this?
218.185.165.225 (talk) 02:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unlisted Episodes 

message: Are the descriptions of the episodes transcribed from another source such as promotional material?  The disjointed fragments don't flow and don't really give an overview of each episode.
Can they be expanded some how?  Liyster 05:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description of episodes 

message: Shouldn't be here. Removed. Douglas (talk) 23:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Youtube links 

message: From googling, I can only find this episode to be listed as belonging to a season 5, not season 4. Does anyone have an official source on this? Most of what I'm finding are only download sites. Not an official TV site or anything like that. IMDB lists it as season 5, episode 1, but they're user generated.--Crossmr (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Business Of Fear
Talk:The Shield of Achilles: War, Peace, and the Course of History

message:  probably isn't quite right but "Give us power, the nation state said, and we will improve your material well-being." is a direct quote. we can change that sentence but I am afraid a lot of this is a restating of what the book says. maybe only minor re-do's are needed. skank-L juice 13:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

message: Or is this article mind-crushingly boring and uninformative? I gave up wanting to copyedit it.  --Greenmaven (talk) 03:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Am I getting tired? 

message: Where is Book I, Part I? It is not mentioned on the page.
Anonymous96.226.136.63 (talk) 01:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book I, Part I
Talk:Tales of a Grandfather

message: The publication dates here (in bold) appear to be contradictory. Can this be clarified?
"Composition
The First Series comprised the period between the reign of Macbeth (1033) and the Union of the Crowns (1603) and it was published in December 1827"
"Publication
Scott, Walter, Sir. Tales of a Grandfather; Being Stories Taken from Scottish History. Humbly Inscribed to Hugh Littlejohn, Esq. In Three Vols. Vol. I[II-III]. Printed for Cadell and Co. Edinburgh; Simpkin and Marshall, London; and John Cumming, Dublin. 1828."
JF42 (talk) 05:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory publication dates
Talk:The Betrayal of the American Right

message: I removed most of a recently-added primary-sourced section, per WP:PRIMARY #1 #2 #3 #4 #5; WP:ABOUTSELF #2 #3 #5; WP:PSTS; WP:DUEWEIGHT because no independent RS are cited; and WP:NONFICTION, which says a synopsis . A longer synopsis could be DUE if it can be cited to independent reliable sources, but all of the sources cited in this article are WP:SPS. Llll5032 (talk) 03:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large primary-sourced section
Talk:The Gentlemen's Alliance Cross

message: The name of the main article has been switched to The Gentlemen's Alliance as per the rules. "Shinshi Doumei Cross" is now a redirect to this page. You can chew my head off if you'd like, but it's down in the rules that the English name is supposed to be used. Raven23 02:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that.  ^_^  I was thinking about doing it, but I've never moved a page before... I didn't want to screw up.  Now, to get some hardcore work done on this page...  Zemalia 18:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome. Um...you may have to be on your own with the work, though. I've actually never read this manga... ^_^ I just like Tanemura-sensei. Raven23 02:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alright, then. 

message: It needs some serious clean up.  I'm using the featured and good articles from the project as a reference.  Currently, the sentances are difficult in general to read, don't flow properly, and have grammar problems.  The bullet points should be worked into the blubs themselves as well.  I'll try and continue edits, but its been a while since I've read the manga so I would prefer to just do grammar so I don't mess any information up.  Also, if there are any Japanese words that had not been mentioned prior in the article, please provide the appropriate hiragana and/or kanji script. Zemalia 14:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character section 

message: I just added an image of the first Viz release. I tried to find one of the Japanese version, but I couldn't find a good one. If a better image is available, please change it. Kelakagandy (talk) 08:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Added 

message: I found quite a few reviews for individual volumes of the series, but I'm not sure they're all good sources.
*Comic Book Bin vol. 1
*Comic Book Bin vol. 2
*Comic Book Bin vol. 3
*Comic Book Bin vol. 7
*Comic Book Bin vol. 8
*Anime News Network vol. 2  
*Mania.com vol. 11
--Kelakagandy (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviews
Talk:Los Carneros AVA

message: Some of these deserve their own articles:--Kharker 21:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wineries in Los Carneros AVA
Talk:Tuhfat Ul Mujahideen

message: QUOTE: It is the first historical work of Kerala to be authored by a keralite. END OF QUOTE.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.97.144.133 (talk) 06:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsense
Talk:Market Street Commandos

message: I did a rewrite to address the following issues:
*Outlaw Motorcycle Gang did not come into use until the 1980s and is a law enforcement designation.  The Market Street Commandos were a motorcycle club, not a gang.
*The history of the POB splitting to form the HA is a detail that does not belong in the opening paragraph of the Market Street Commandos article. It's not that it's not true - it just isn't appropriate for the opening paragraph.  This could be expanded upon later.
*The opening sentence needed to clearly define what, exactly, the Market Street Commandos are/were.  The former opening sentence was quite muddled in that regard.
Mmoyer 02:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you suppose to know this? Were you there? Unless you can come up with some reliable references, this is just an opinion which has no relevance here. What you consider a 1% club and what I consider a 1% club are probably two very different things, and both opinions are irrelevant to the goal of improving the qualify of Wikipedia articles on the subject. Garth of the Forest (talk) 03:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 
Talk:Go to Hell (CSI)

message: Uncontroversial but I thought it worth throwing open for discussion. I'd say Go to Hell can just be turned into a redirect (Emperor 03:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: Um, what the heck is the bee thing in the article and the supposed meta-inference that it means the series will end in 4 years?   Unless there is some cite or further explanation of this, I'd say that it's a very very bizarre extrapoloation that should be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.206.11 (talk) 13:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bee Reference
Talk:The Case of the Cross-Dressing Carp

message: Ok, I noticed Jorja seemed a little...heavier in this episode and my first thought was she was pregnant. Now, I think I'm probably going to be wrong about that, but just how she looked made me think she might be pregnant, because I've seen pregnant women before and she seems to have to noticeable signs I've seen before. As I said, I could be wrong and she might just be getting fat or something, but with Sara saying yes to Grissom and Jorja looking a little heavier, I'm think a pregnancy might, just might, be integrated into the plot with the upcoming marriage and all. I'm probably wrong, and I don't want to start rumors, but she looks pregnant to me and I was just wondering if anyone else thought that too. Green Pirate 02:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is it just me, or does Jorja look pregnant?
Talk:BAM (magazine)

message: I have been searching for anyone that may have somehow stored issues of BAM away from the years 1980 to mid 1983. E-mail - takethetime2@cox.net  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MeegsC (talk • contribs) 09:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request

message: It appears that recent edits include original research and don’t cite reliable, third-party sources. I plan to edit the article to remove original research and add inline citations and references. I appreciate other editors’ thoughts and assistance. Greente28 (talk) 15:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Edits
Talk:Rajah Humabon

message: After reading some chapters of the english translation of Pigafettas account (see here), I have some doubts if you can call it a conversion, in today understanding of the term, what Magellan did there. Rajah Humabon seemed to be threatened to do whatever Magellan liked:
On approaching the principal town [Cebu] the captain general commanded all his ships to hang on their flags. Then we lowered the sails in the fashion in which they are struck when going to fight, and he had all the artillery fired, at which the people of this place were greatly frightened. (p.84)
The interpreter [...] declared to him, that he was the King of Spain and Emperor of all Christendom, wherefore, if he would not be his friend and treat his subjects well, he would at another time send against him so many men as to destroy him. (p. 85-86)
So Magellan tried a forced conversion, but even there he didn't succeed, because, thanks to Lapu-Lapu, Humabon wasn't forced for long enough into repetition of Magellans believe to actually believe anything himself. Thus after Magellans death he right away attacked the remaining Spaniards.
Of cause most contemporary Europeans of the time called this a conversion, but the article shouldn't hush over those facts that reveal, that in todays understand this is nothing the like. -- Käptn Weltall (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Conversion" to Christianity 

message: Nag palaganap ng kristiyanismo sa mga katutubong pilipino 2001:4453:673:3F00:20ED:8267:B89D:4D13 (talk) 04:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: English translation as : Christianity spread among the native Filipinos . Wisdood (talk) 09:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  AP 

message: He could have not died on April 27 1521 if he orchestrated the May 1 massacre.January Bacus (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rajah Humabon's date of death?
Talk:Chalk Hill AVA

message: I question the value of the statement that grapes in Chalk Hill are harvested in September, when surrounding areas are harvested in October.  That is just a little too simplistic.  Different varietals of grapes are harvested at different times.  Individual years may move harvest forward or back by two or three weeks.  This year, 2010, we are getting ready to harvest pinot noir in Chalk Hill (as of Sept. 21) on a vineyard for which we contract the fruit.  Pinot noir is one of the first varietals to be harvested.  In the same week we expect to harvest pinot noir in Healdsburg and by the end of the month at our own vineyard in Santa Rosa.  I would expect harvest to be a bit later in Green Valley over towards Graton.  But if we had pinot noir in Alexander Valley (north of Chalk Hill), I would expect it to come in earlier than any of these, because it is warmer.  (Cab and Zin are much more commonly planted there as a result).  Kmslogos (talk) 12:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Note the qualifying word "often".  I'm sure that your personal observations are valid.  Unfortunately, they don't constitute a reliable source. --Stepheng3 (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Harvest schedule
Talk:Cometbus

message: In the controversial 2007 movie "Redacted" one of the main characters in the film (a GI named "Blix") appears to have a copy of the magazine stashed next to his bunk. The title is clearly visible and prominent throughout an entire scene.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.25.139 (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Bakota, Ukraine

message: The first paragraph is very confusing because it says the town was first mentioned in 1240, but then talks about belonging to the Kevin Roose in the 12th century which is actually the 1100s. If it's not mentionee til 1240, that's already in the 13th century. 
Also it says, in the middle of the 13th Century that the town came under a different feudal lordship. But 1240 is essentially the middle of the 13th century - so it might be more accurate to say in the third quarter of the 13th century, not in the middle.
Could someone who knows more about the dates here please fix that paragraph? Maybe saying that it's not knowing when the medieval town was founded but the first mention in official records is 1240? That's the only way mentioning the Kiev Rus' makes sense. Thx! 2607:F2C0:EC94:38C0:5831:FC66:1888:99E8 (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  year 1240 is 13th century
Talk:Pujyapada

message: *The original version of this article incorporated text from http://www.gohgk.com/servlet/Detail?no=15, a GFDL source.  As of today, the following statement is included near the top of that page:
::"I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby grant the permission to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts."
:-- But|seriously|folks  02:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Attribution