lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:RAF Wroughton

message: The article appears to digress off-subject.  I'm proposing a deletion of the content outlined below, as irrelevant to RAF Wroughton.  As someone who is not local to the area (I'm in the United States) it's very unclear to me what connection the following paragraphs have to the RAF station.  Are they talking about exhibits at the Museum Annex now located at Wroughton?  If so, that should be made much clearer.
Proposed deletions:
<redacted>
Itsfullofstars 08:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've discovered since writing the above that a good portion of the content of the original article (including most of the paragraphs I suggested should be deleted) has been plagarized verbatim from this site: http://www.swindonweb.com/guid/heriplanes0.htm Since there's no indication that permission was granted for re-publication of the material on wikipedia, I will delete the copyrighted material.  Most of it didn't belong in the article anyway. Itsfullofstars 09:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://web.archive.org/web/20050214074150/http://www.swindonweb.com/guid/heriplanes0.htm and http://www.raf.mod.uk/PMRAFNS/history/rafhospitalwroughton.cfm. 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, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their 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.  Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite the work done by  in 2007, there was substantial copyvio remaining from the initial copy-pastes when the page was created (comparison). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Talk:Brian Martin (social scientist)

message: In my view this article is structured and framed to amplify negative coverage, and paint a subtly misleading picture. When nearly half of the body of text is under a non-neutral section heading of Controversies, this becomes a magnet for controversial content, no matter how relevant. WP:UNDUE, WP:PROPORTION and the essay WP:CRITS are germane to the discussion. Furthermore, there seems to be subtle editorial biases, perhaps unconscious, in the presentation of facts: phrases like "he has been criticized for..." often link to articles that merely state that people refuted or disagreed with him, or that he supported a student, or are criticisms of Wilyman, without explicitly mentioning criticism of Martin. This turns a neutral into a negative. I see no explicit criticism of Martin himself in purported sources like The Australian and New Matilda. Another Australian piece mentions critics of Wilyman's thesis who question whether Martin "had the necessary knowledge to assess it", but this can be simply stated rather than given a editorial nudge towards criticism. I do see criticism in an opinion piece by an unnamed author in The Australian, and possibly reasonable criticism in Tools for Critical Thinking in Biology, but again, framing matters, and the article should be scrutinized for presence of bias in the presentation and compilation of facts.  --Animalparty! (talk) 00:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the comments above. This BLP has long been a matter of contention and needs serious revision. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Similarly I agree. At various points the article, in my opinion, comes close to being defamatory in nature. Perhaps the worst aspect of the editing of this article is that any Editor who dares to suggest the need for revision is likely to be the subject of personal abuse. Let's hope that this has changed. Research17 (talk) 04:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article biases
Category talk:Fan films

message: Should pages placed in the subcategories, such as :Category:Star Wars fan films, also be placed in the parent category :Category:Fan films?  In most cases, Wikipedia prefers to use the most specific relevant category. Goustien (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe both have a place - besides, your recent swath of edits affected some that don't fit into specific categories. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize if I made some mistakes, but I was trying to move pages into :Category:Star Trek fan films or :Category:Star Wars fan films as appropriate. This would be consistent with the treatment of pages in :Category:Batman fan films. Goustien (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subcategories? 

message: Is there a reason that Fan fiction is listed as the parent category? Fan films are not a type of fan fiction. Fan fiction = a genre of writing. Fan film = a genre of film.--Duesouthfan (talk) 04:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  parent category is inaccurate
Talk:Blackwood High School

message: nearly a "start" .... Victuallers 11:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually a start! --Steve  (Stephen)  talk  01:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

message: A deletion of this article would be foolish. High Schools have enough notabality to be wikiworthy --St.daniel 23:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Every highschool deserves an article on Wikipedia. Stop The Lies 03:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No

message: not blackwood  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.175.142 (talk) 12:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adam cooney went to Aberfoyle
Talk:List of components of the U.S. Department of Defense

message: This article should be deleted, or renamed "Structure of the United States Army" — though it is currently redundant since the same information is covered (in more detail) in the Structure section of the United States Army article — or it should be expanded to include the Navy,Marine Corps, Air Force, Coast Guard, and perhaps National Guard when it is under the control of State governors.
This article is completely missing DoD agencies and field activities. Good overview of these is in DoDD 5100.01, now referenced in the article. Dwvisser (talk) 16:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I guess I'm voting to improve, since I added the DoD chart at the top. Of course the Commander in Chief belongs above the DoD chart and the chart itself should be rendered in scalable vector graphics format (SVG) for readability and perhaps for collapsing and expanding branches, which can be achieved in SVG . —Blanchette 21:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this is more of the Structure of the USAF with the command structure of the DOD thrown in at the top.  I say keep it, but trim it down to just the DOD and major commands of the branches, with links to the command structures of the different branches. Leobold1 (talk) 07:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, there is nothing in here about the USMC or USCG.  Leobold1 (talk) 07:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete, Rename, or Improve? 

message: Can someone update the Northern Command section to reflect the fact that the SE Air Defense Sector is no longer around? I'd do it, but I know absolutely nothing about the stubject.... --Mukk 12:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update pls? 

message: Does anyone have an Organisational Chart for the USAF?  This would provide a quick and visual reference to see how the USAF is structured.  The Russians have done their's: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Russian_Air_Force.png).  The information for the USAF diagram appears to be on the page but if someone could do a diagram, then placing it upon the site somewhere would be Informative.  Some might argue that such diagrams are pointless.  
PS - I believe a more complex Organisational Chart would be an integrated diagram for the whole of the American Armed Forces (ie: including the Air Force, Land Forces and Navy).  The equivalent of the IDF's diagram:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Structure_idf.png 
ASavantDude (talk) 01:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Organisational Charts
Talk:Rapid deployment force

message: Probably unintentional, but the Rapid Response link leads to an album rather than any kind of relevant emergency personnel the article was talking about. That's a bit of a funny mistake to serendipity upon.--47.12.131.9 (talk) 21:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rapid Response 

message: "Rapid Reaction Force" (note capitals) redirects here. However there is also a page called "Rapid reaction force" (not capitalised) which deals with the same subject in some detail! Merge?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.144.99.145 (talk) 13:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rapid reaction force 

message: Some examples of national rapid deployment-capable forces are listed. My only issue is the criteria for admission onto this list. Some undoubtedly possess a global reach, eg. US' XVIII Corps or the French Foreign Legion. However, others eg. Malaysia's 10 Paratrooper Brigade or Sri Lanka's Air Mobile Brigade, are more questionable. Does it only depend on whether the force has limited airlift/sealift capability and deployability in its own country and the surrounding region? In that case the military units of even the most ill-equipped nations might fit the bill. I'm thinking that is has to be more than that, i.e. true global power projection capability and the means to sustain an extended operation (logistically) halfway around the world.
This would also cohere with the second paragraph, where it is stated that "Rapid Deployment Forces in most militaries are used for deployment outside of their country's borders."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.86.117 (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples of Rapid Deployment Forces
Talk:Heaven Knows (Donna Summer song)

message: "It is adapted from a studio recording from the Live and More album"
a little ambiguous  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:8500:982:1CE5:BC22:B721:1F2F (talk) 04:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  ambiguous 

message: "In 2012, the song will be turning into a Broadway musical."
What does that mean? 12.162.122.6 (talk) 19:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed that sentence. If it was true, there would have been an article about it by now (most Broadway musicals are notable by virtue of being performed in a Broadway theatre). A search found these articles   about a musical comedy named Heaven Knows from 2004 by Charles Bloom, but there is no Wikipedia article for that musical likely because it is not notable in Wikipedia standards. Tinlinkin (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Broadway
Talk:Timeline of the 2007 Pacific typhoon season

message: I'm thinking that we should use operational JTWC times in all cases. JTWC warnings are three hours behind operational (like the NHC). However in the Atl and EPac we use actual warning times until the TCRs come out then change to operational six-hour best-track. Thoughts on a middle ground? – Chacor 01:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, because it's simply more practical to use operational times all the way through. Even though the warnings are released at a certain time, the information is for 3 hours before. - SpLoT // 02:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thing is, it could very well be upgraded, at say 1 hour before release (two hours after operational). – Chacor 02:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  JTWC times 

message: Is it fair to say JTWC is unofficial for the U.S. military? All national agencies and JTWC (for the U.S.) are official within their countries. In addition, the JTWC also has civilian responsibility--Micronesia--which is not mentioned in the text.
Does it make any sense to use 12-hour clocks for UTC? If it isn't local time, a 24-hour clock (0000, 0600, etc.) is only appropriate. HkCaGu 22:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, NWS WFO Guam has responsibility for Micronesia, not the JTWC. As for "unofficial advisories" I'd say that's a wording issue - its advisories, while indeed official for US Military, are unofficial in a broad sense for the region (although they still are used widely by many news outlets). As for UTC time, it doesn't make a difference either way as long as it gets the meaning across. – Chacor 01:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But JTWC  makes the track forecast, which is used by NWS Guam. (Just like the US military uses NWS NHC/CPHC forecast tracks.) So JTWC is the designated "official US (and RMI/FSM/RoP) forecast" under NHOP. As to UTC, any operational meteorologist (or of any other profession that use UTC) can tell you that UTC is never used with AM/PM because it is meaningless (in terms of morning, afternoon, evening, which is what AM/PM implies). HkCaGu 15:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The UTC issue still makes no difference to me, but if you feel strongly about it, fix it. - SpLoT // 16:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Officialness and UTC Time
Talk:Mathematicians in Love

message: The link to a "Review by Sci Fi Weekly" appears to be dead, so I've removed it. Zero Thrust (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed hyperlink to a review
Talk:Spaceland (novel)

message: This plot summary is more like a plug or an advertisement.  Has anyone read this book and if so can you write a better summary?
(Replying to the above, hope I'm doing this right.)
The plot summary is very similar to the wording on the book jacket.  I've just bought the book and read it; as I have time, I'll expand on the stub.
JMiykal 18:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Talk:St Aldate's, Oxford

message: On city plan I should write: St Aldate's or St Aldate's Street or...?
:Just St. Aldate's. Shimgray | talk | 15:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. That's it's name. Graldensblud 23:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: According to all the books on Oxford that I've read, there's no such saint as "Aldate" -- the name comes from "Old Gates" -- and there's therefore no apostrophe.  Interestingly, even the church of St Aldates doesn't use the apostrophe. --87.113.53.153 (talk) 07:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Apostrophe, and etymology
Talk:State of Independence

message: Is a sentence I removed from the article. It's nonsense. In that documentary he mentioned songs he admired the production of, and this was one of them. The Beatles' Tomorrow Never Knows was another. FCTS 142 (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  " In a 2010 [[BBC]] Arena documentary, [[Brian Eno]] revealed this to be his favourite record ever."
Talk:Lydbrook

message: This article has been uploaded onto Wikipedia by the copyright holder, The Reverend Dr Michael Foster.
It was deleted by Alphachimp despite the copyright being defended in Talk:Lydbrook
Here is some of the Talk:Lydbrook I have rescued from the deletion:
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Lybrook. If the article has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Lybrook, after describing the release on the talk page. However, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. SUBWAYguy 22:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

message: This article is very long. I suggest the 'History of Christian worship in Lydbrook' section be split off to form a separate article. Verica Atrebatum 19:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section 'History of Christian worship in Lydbrook' is ridiculously long, unencyclopaedic and lacks references. Evidently it's been this way for many years too. Is there anyone with knowledge on the subject who can edit this section? Obscurasky (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Long article

message: There was once a small Midland (now HSBC) Bank in Lydbrook - only open one day a week, if I recall (?Tuesday?) but was closed in the early 1990's. The building is still there - now a private house, but with some of the bank's architecture intact. Located more or less opposite the Fish & Chip Shop, Central Lydbrook  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.36.248 (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Midland/HSBC Bank 

message: Moved to talk.  Seems to be unreferenced trivia. RJFJR (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Pubs, clubs and restaurants

message: Moved to talk.  Seems to be unreferenced trivia. RJFJR (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Shops

message: This is a nice article, with a lot of information, although I would agree with the comment above that it could usefully be shortened, in line with Wikipedia:Summary style. But what it really needs is references! KJP1 (talk) 11:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cites!
Talk:Eddie Klep

message: I've heard a source quote Daily Variety of 24 Feb 1999 saying it was 1947, not 1946, in the Negro National League. Who's right?  Trekphiler 08:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Suits me. Just checkin'.  Trekphiler 06:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Multi-modal International Cargo Hub and Airport at Nagpur

message: My 4 year exprince from  contiant aliancec cargo my exp---  storkaping and costum and any cargo wark  
 I now lunguage  english urdu arbic and rashin language 
  I Have driving license 2year old and  I have driving expri-- whein you need plase cantack                   My E-mail =barkat7778@yahoo.com and Mob =0553893161=0566522331  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.98.10.143 (talk) 11:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  4 Year  exprance from cargo wark   
Talk:Eric Stenbock

message: The intro says 1860, while the category says 1858. --Delirium (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  birth year? 

message: I can't find any evidence that Lovecraft commented favourably on or, indeed, ever read any Stenbock.
Lovecraft makes reference to 'Stenbok' [sic] once in a letter of 1932 to Richard E. Morse, indicating an interest in reading his work but also clearly stating he had never heard of Stenbock until Morse made reference to him in previous correspondence.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.206.189.249 (talk) 09:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged H.P. Lovecraft endorsement of Stenbock inaccurate
Talk:Jinete

message: There was a medieval riding style known as a la jineta, derived from Islamic light cavalry (and an alternative style, a la brida, longer stirrups, deeper seat).  I presume the riding style and the term jinete have similar roots?  Any etymologists out there?  Montanabw(talk) 04:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Riding style
Talk:John Ball (golfer)

message: The article describes Ball as being an "Immortal" of the "Royal Empire". Can anyone clarify this? WhaleyTim (talk) 13:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Copied verbatim from HoF article. Have removed. Nigej (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Immortal of the Royal Empire

message: A blue plaque commemorating John Ball is located in his birthplace Hoylake, outside the Royal Liverpool Golf Academy on Meols. I thought this could be mentioned somewhere in the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.49.2 (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a reliable source for this information? wjematherplease leave a message... 19:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

text: wjematherplease leave a message... 11:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: John Ball blue plaque
Talk:Charles Coe

message: Article on Coe at the Masters, 188.200.235.36 (talk) 08:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 
Talk:United States Girls' Junior Golf Championship

message: I recognize names of girls from other countries on LPGA, but how did they become eligible to play in girls junior US Open? Ariya Jutanugarnb, and Eun Jeong Seong, are both from other countries. How do they qualify for this tournament? 174.57.63.24 (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: As the article states, only requirements are amateur status, age and handicap - not citizenship. Tewapack (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do girls coming from outside the US, become eligible to play in girls junior US Open?
Talk:The Women's Amateur Championship

message: The winners will be awarded a trophy and a salver, confirmed by some photos.
Is "Pam Barton Memorial Salver" the one looking a salver?
Or the one looking a trophy?
--Panpulha (talk) 11:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pam Barton Memorial Salver 

message: As far as I can tell, the R&A site usually refers to this with an apostrophe. The only exceptions I see are the logo itself and the website menu. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 23:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Womens vs. Women's
Talk:Ujung Kulon National Park

message: Different sources indicate slightly different areas:
* Indonesian Ministry of Forestry: 122,956 ha 
* UNESCO: 123,051 ha 
* Ujung Kulon National Park - Official website: 120,551 ha 
Elekhh (talk) 14:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Area

message: The given sourceUNEP: Ujung Kulon, retrieved 2010-0108, a PDF from the UN, does state that the National Park was designated as an ASEAN Heritage Park in 2005, but the ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity's own website has no mention of it: http://chm.aseanbiodiversity.org/index.php?searchword=ujung&ordering=&searchphrase=all&option=com_search, https://aseanbiodiversity.org/?s=ujung, so I am not sure if it actually is. Is anyone more familiar with the topic able to clarify? 20UF6 (talk) 04:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status as an ASEAN Heritage Park
Talk:Schizosaccharomyces pombe

message: "Fission yeast contains one of the smallest numbers of genes of a known genome sequence for a eukaryote, including only three genes in its genome"
"Three genes" looks like a mistake - was the intention of the author to refer to the three chromosomes which comprise the genome of the fission yeast? Eyal Bairey (talk) 15:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Cosmopolitan Girl

message: I will try and improve it but I am seeking adoption. --Blue5864 09:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you would like to see :WP:ALBUM, there is a lot of information about how to format an album article. Alternatively, leave as much information as you can on this page (including track listing) and someone will come along and have a go for you. Bubba hotep 09:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Improve article