lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Kiwanis Music Festival

message: This started as an unreferenced article solely on the Toronto competition. However, there are many such Kiwanis festivals across Canada, therefore an article overhaul was begun accordingly. Things to do include additional media coverage (guaranteed sum total notability given the many Kiwanis festivals nationally), references to people involved in the festivals (e.g. award winners), more historical background, and completing the table of cities. Dl2000 (talk) 05:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion/To-Do
Talk:Michael W. Mosman

message: A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/Michael W. Mosman was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.--TommyBoy (talk) 03:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Bot-created subpage

message: While well sourced, Alterrabe's addition appears to be highly POV.  I had attempted to reword to more neutral language, but was reverted.     POV on. Toddst1 (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highly POV edits
Talk:French submarine Le Triomphant (S616)

message: Wasn't she featured in the movie Crimson Tide?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.243.78 (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Talk:French submarine Le Terrible (S619)

message: shouldn't the name actually be Le Terrible as detailed on the French navy official website http://www.defense.gouv.fr/marine/equipements/sous-marins/sous-marins-nucleaire-lanceurs-d-engins . Also applies to the sister ships and the class name Lyndaship (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  full name
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Photography/History of Photography/Archive/List of old AfDs

message: At the end of July 2008, this WikiProject started up "Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/History of photography" (within days, renamed Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Photography, or WP:DSPHOTO for short). Since then, photography-related AfDs have been listed there, and on completion moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Photography/archive.
Before late July 2008, this WikiProject listed links to AfDs. What follows is the list. (Please don't edit it.) 
*Edgar de Evia was one of the most established editorial and commercial photographers of the 1950s. Anyone familiar with this period may wish to voice your opinion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edgar de Evia. Doc ♬ talk 23:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Photography/History of Photography/Archive/List of old questionable articles

message: * Bryan Wharton -- A British photojournalist  TheMindsEye 03:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: removed copyvio and spam, added comment to talk page - does appear notable, but the article still eneds work Brian 09:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: tagged as db-bio ... no assertion or evidence of notability, only google hit was to the Wikipedia page ... Brian 09:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Lissotesta bicarinata

message: This article was based on Powell A. W. B., New Zealand Mollusca, William Collins Publishers Ltd, Auckland, New Zealand 1979 . It has been revised on this date to eliminate a probable copyright violation of that book. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. (For background on this situation, please see the related administrator's noticeboard discussion.) Thank you.  --Whpq (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Talk:Lissotesta oblata

message: This article was based on Powell A. W. B., New Zealand Mollusca, William Collins Publishers Ltd, Auckland, New Zealand 1979 . It has been revised on this date to eliminate a probable copyright violation of that book. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. (For background on this situation, please see the related administrator's noticeboard discussion.) Thank you.  --Whpq (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Talk:Retention and protention

message: This is not copyright violation as the quotes are sourced and are not significant amount of the original text. This kind of quoting is standard in academic work.
Of course the article needs a lot more work. I was hoping a trained philosopher would do it.
Rather than delete, this page should be passed to your philosophy experts for improving
=============
I was in the middle of updating when the speedy delete tag was added. I have briefly updated the article and it is a relevant topic, but it still requires work from an expert on Husserl. I removed the Varela quote, but the Merleau-Ponty quote stays because it explains Retention so beautifully and the length of the quote falls within the scope of a legitimate use of academic material.(Amerywu (talk) 07:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No copyvio 

message: I was in the middle of updating when the speedy delete tag was added. I have briefly updated the article and it is a relevant topic, but it still requires work from an expert on Husserl. I removed the Varela quote, but the Merleau-Ponty quote stays because it explains Retention so beautifully and the length of the quote falls within the scope of a legitimate use of academic material.(Amerywu (talk) 07:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: =
Talk:Molly Giles

message: A search of her in the Pulitzer database does not show her as a finalist or a winner of a Pulitzer. The claim about being getting a Pulitzer nomination is essentially meaningless.  Anyone with a published work can be "nominated" for a Pulitzer, even self-nominated, provided they pay the small fee and fill out the form.
See:
Pulitzer_Prize#Difference_between_entrants_and_nominated_finalists
Language was removed from page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1337 Tibet (talk • contribs) 00:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pulitzer Nomination
Talk:ThriftBooks

message: This is a restored article which has been tagged multiple times for db-spam.  It is an advertisement.  The previous discussion was rigged as rigged gets, with multiple new users voting whose only edits or history are this article AT THE TIME OF AfD DISCUSSION.  Ultimately, the vote was 3-2 with all three of the "for" quite possibly being the same user. (User:LoneWriter even edited User:Measure's User Page as though the same person).  The discussion also involves the owner/manager, who then admits information for the article was copied directly from Thriftbooks' website.  
This is a non-notable topic written as an ad, not an article, and then kept by a rigged vote.  It's time for this to go.  --BizMgr (talk) 06:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is advertising, it is not blatant enough for speedy deletion. With the company having been covered in the Seattle Times, the article doesn't qualify for A7 either. Feel free to bring it to AFD again though. AecisBrievenbus 12:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD Discussion

message: It's apparent this shill article was place by either thirftbooks or by their shills. It appears that it has been nominated for deletion multiple times. So, instead, let's remove the marketing hype. meatclerk (talk) 02:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing Blantant Advertising

message: Virtually no statement in this entry is backed by any proof. The one link that may have been useful is now 404. Nicmart (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: There aren't many secondary sources on the topic, but it's relatively easy to find sources for most of the statements in the article, which is rather matter-of-fact. Nemo 17:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very poor entry
Talk:Burhou

message: Moved "(pronounced bu-ROO)" for discussion. Admittedly I pronounce it with a Jersey accent, but for me the stress falls on the first syllable - as in Écréhous. If there's a source for Alderney end-stress, could that be added? Man vyi (talk) 06:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I should add that the Appendix gives an initial-stress pronunciation for Écréhous (EK-ri-hoe), which seems to lend credence to its accuracy. Languagehat (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: EK-ri-hoe? Another horrible BBC pronunciation. Man vyi (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Fair enough. Just checking. Man vyi (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation
Talk:1959 in Pakistan

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://web.archive.org/web/20051217030607/http://ghazali.net/book1/chronology.htm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  TreyGeek (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Talk:Battle of Salyersville

message: keep the image of the reenactment. if other battles can have them as images why not.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bj howard (talk • contribs) 00:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You mentioned the Battle of Richmond article as precedent. That's a pretty good precedent for why we shouldn't use re-enactment photos to illustrate civil war era articles: They may be outright ahistorical. Just to use your precedent: The Confederate flag in the Battle of Richmond reenactment has seven stars, but by 1862 the Confederate national flag had thirteen. Were there really Confederate troops at that battle whose flags didn't show the correct number of stars? I doubt it. The Confederate flag on the Salyersville image is just as dubious: The Confederate battle flag was actually square. Asked conversely: How is a reenactment photo supposed to help a reader? What kind of information does it convey? I don't see what good this image does the article. Huon (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

text: "It looks good" is not a reason, and neither is being an image of the first-ever reenactment. This isn't an article on the reenactment, after all. With all due respect to the reenactors, the image may give a misleading impression, it may suffer historical inaccuracies (such as the flag - and I doubt that the heavyset guy in the background actually wears anything resembling a Union uniform), and in my opinion we're better off with no image at all than with such a problematic one. It'd probably be very hard to have a reenactment without some anachronism or other - that's not the reenactors' fault, but it means that reenactment images should always be considered tainted. I've asked for additional opinions at WT:WikiProject Military History. Huon (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

text: I appreciate your interest in reenactment, but that is irrelevant to our purposes here. A reply has been given at WT:WikiProject Military History#Reenactment photos, and I agree with that reply that reenactment photos are not useful for illustrating articles on historical battles. Huon (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reenactment image
Talk:1958 in Pakistan

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.ghazali.net/book1/chronology.htm. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  --Misarxist 15:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 
Talk:1957 in Pakistan

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://web.archive.org/web/20051217030607/http://ghazali.net/book1/chronology.htm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  TreyGeek (talk) 13:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Talk:1953 in Pakistan

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://web.archive.org/web/20051217030607/http://ghazali.net/book1/chronology.htm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  TreyGeek (talk) 01:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Talk:Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act

message: I took the following off the actual page, and into the talk page where it belongs. I think. Anyway, it isn't the kind of quality that I expect from Wikipedia.
59.167.253.59 (talk) Some random bloke.
—71.167.220.95 (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:1967 in Pakistan

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://web.archive.org/web/20051217030607/http://ghazali.net/book1/chronology.htm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  TreyGeek (talk) 13:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Talk:1966 in Pakistan

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://web.archive.org/web/20051217030607/http://ghazali.net/book1/chronology.htm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  TreyGeek (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright problem removed
Talk:1965 in Pakistan

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://web.archive.org/web/20051217030607/http://ghazali.net/book1/chronology.htm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  TreyGeek (talk) 13:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright problem removed
Talk:1962 in Pakistan

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://web.archive.org/web/20051217030607/http://ghazali.net/book1/chronology.htm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  TreyGeek (talk) 13:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed