lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Bnei Atzmon

message: Support, 'Bnei' is the more widely used (and official) spelling (on the MFA and IDF websites) and the 'Bney' article, though providing some good info, needs cleanup and proper wikify. I do not mind performing the editing, either way the vote goes. --Shuki 18:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: I didn't understand this paragraph enough to include it in the merge. 
The settlement itself rose on the ground in 1978 as a response to Camp David Accords. In the beginning it was a cooperative settlement, few years ago the settlemnt went through privatization process that said that  all the families would belong the community society and 30 families in the settlement would belong the cooperative framework. Between the two groups existed a whole harmony and mutual aid.
--Shuki 20:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  info but from 'Bney'  article but not included in merge. 

message: I reverted the addition as it makes no sense. This is a former settlement in Gaza, there were no Israelis there on Oct 7. The source must be referring to somewhere else or mistaken. nableezy -  01:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Please undo your revert. You didn't read clearly the month and a year. It was on March 7 2002. Another massacre by Hamas. Not the one on October 7 2023. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I restored it as you are right I misread the date. But I also do not think this source is reliable for the claim, if this is true it will be found in something besides just some random Russian language website. nableezy -  01:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not reliable? Are you sure you have seen the source? Are you sure you want to call this source "Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty" unreliable? With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I found local sources to use. There’s no reason for us to be citing a Russian source on something in Gaza in the English Wikipedia. nableezy -  01:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  No problem, to make it easier, I have translated the article to English and created it (Atzmona Massacre). Have a good day. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  7 oct
Talk:Chagford

message: It was me... Just a note to say that the Article changes on 31-Jan-06 and 01-Feb-06 were made by me, before I had a User ID, and I omitted to put in "Edit summaries". For the record, I expanded the Mary Whiddon paragraph, corrected and expanded the churches paragraph, and provided additional external links. Dartmoorpete 18:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Roger Williams National Memorial

message: Beginning a discussion here to gain consensus around images. I believe :File:2021 Roger Williams National Memorial sign.jpg, which  has repeatedly inserted into the article, is of significantly lower quality than an alternative photograph by . Thoughts? Filetime (talk) 01:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , I agree. Just the sign itself is not helpful since the subject of the article is the entire park. (t · c) buidhe 01:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

text: +1 --Commonists (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images
Talk:Mechanical license

message: It's quite ironic that this is a blatant copyvio from the Harry Fox Agency. I'd flag it as copyvio for deletion, but I think this is a useful subject for an article and will edit it to be more encyclopedic. --  18:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

message: I know something about copyright, but this this article is still unclear to me. Could someone expound?
1) What is a mechanical license? Specifically, what does it allow someone to do that they would otherwise not be able to do?
2) Why is the Harry Fox Agency responsible for most US licenses?
3) In what way is a license "self-promotion"? Is the text meant to read that self-promotion activities often require licenses? Now it might be interpreted to mean that the license itself is self-promotion.
4) Why would an artist need to get a license for their own work? The citation to Harry Fox seems not to say this.
5) Is it an interpretation that ringtones are related to mechanical licenses? The citation to "The Register" does not explicitly name them.
Piano non troppo (talk) 04:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding context

message: I'm taking another look at this article to see how it can be improved. I'm wondering where the broad definition of mechanical license in the first sentence comes from. I'm not aware of "mechanical license" being used outside the narrow context of its use in the music industry - a license to reproduce a version of a musical composition on a mechanical device or phonorecord. A search on both Google and Google Scholar appears to confirm this.
So my question is, does anyone know of any sources that support the broader definition of "mechanical license" that is set forth in this article's first sentence?
Hartboy (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article lead 

message: The example given is of using a mechanical as the license for the composition portion of a sample.  It's my understanding that a mechanical license is not a sampling license.  A mechanical allows reproducing a work as a phonorecord.  The sample itself is not a phonorecord, and is being used to create a *new* work.  I've had a had time getting clarity on this from my sources, surprisingly.  If I'm correct, then the example should be removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.50.214.112 (talk) 06:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Puff Daddy Example 

message: From reading the article it is not clear whether the mechanical license has international value.
To distribute a CD containing a cover all over the world, is the mechanical license sufficient?
Is the mechanical license valid only in the united states?
I think it would be useful to specify this aspect.
--79.51.69.11 (talk) 09:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Validity In The World? 

message: IANAL, but I believe review copies and Artist copies are exempt from licensing fees. 
2601:1C2:1B7F:F450:7524:DF0B:191:AE69 (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exceptions
Talk:Takens's theorem

message: I find this article confusing because of the way it talks about Hausdorff dimension and Whitney's theorem. In particular, it says:
:Assume that the dynamics f has an invariant manifold A with Hausdorff dimension dA (it could be a strange attractor).  Using Whitney's embedding theorem, A can be embedded in k-dimensional Euclidean space with k > 2 dA.  
The Whitney's embedding theorem I know (and the article in Wikipedia) does not talk about Hausdorff dimension. The version of Takens theorem I had heard also does not deal with Hausdorff dimension, just plain old topological dimension. I have a feeling that this article might not be quite right--or is it some generalization I hadn't heard before?? does anyone know? Would it be better to have the usual statement of Takens' theorem here? --Experiment123 18:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote the article from memory while I was writing something on Takens.  What I wrote down is most likely tainted by Sauer and friends (I remember wondering about the one that is in the original k > dimH(A×A) + 1).  Upon re-reading, it should be "using ideas from Whitney's theorem" and "manifold" should be set. — XaosBits 01:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cool! Looks good! --Experiment123 02:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Fixed the Hausdorff dimension (that was wrong).  The Sauer-Yorke-Casdagli version works only with box counting dimensions and not Hausdorff.   Added the original references.   I also feel that Takens' theorem should redirect here and the page should be moved to something more generic. — XaosBits 16:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing 

message: This section seems oddly informal by Wikipedia standards. It would help to state what aspects of the description are simplified and inaccurate, and to note when these differences from the formal description are relevant.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.166.255 (talk) 05:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simplified, slightly inaccurate version 

message: The dimension "d" as defined in the informal section appears to be the same as "nu" in the previous section.  It may be easily confused with d_A in the previous section.  Also, the informal section states that k is at most 2d+1, but nowhere in the previous section does it state that k < 2nu+1 or k < 2d_A+1.  In fact, the previous section states that k > 2d_a, which is a lower bound, not an upper bound on k, so it is very unclear how the informal section relates to the previous section.  The readability of the article can be improved by making it clearer how the two sections are related.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.16.204.80 (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency in the informal section?
Talk:Boris Sagal

message: Boris Sagal is Jewish.--80.230.207.236 19:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The date of birth on his tumbstone differs from this one here. Lincher 21:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of birth 

message: There seems to be some error in the date of death of Sagal's first wife.
In this wiki it says 1975, but in the wiki on his daughter, it says that
his first wife died of heart disease when his daughter was only 11. It says
the daughter was born in 1961. 
So that would put the death in '72 or '73 not '75. 
One of these wikis is not correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.202.120.159 (talk) 08:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  discrepency on dates 
Talk:U.S. Army Combat Arms Regimental System

message: Although on the whole the article is very professional (a verbatim reproduction of the official US Army web page on the topic)--I did change the summary at the opening of the article to wiki-style and wikify it. --Buckboard 08:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, a verbatim reproduction. That means it is the official view and will hardly offer any serious criticism of CARS. One reason for CARS was the introduction of the unwise Pentomic concept, one consequence of which was the break-up of existing infantry regiments into bunches of battalions that were assigned willy-nilly to different battlegroups. Instead of simply recognizing that this destruction of regimental cohesion was wrong, the Army stayed on this ill-advised path when it instituted the brigade system with the ROAD reorganizations of the 1960s. CARS and its successor system are attempts to maintain the traditions and spirit of the old regiments, but these schemes do not work nearly as well as the old regiments, which had high unit cohesion. The current brigades are filled with battalions from numerous regiments and result in battalions having confused lineages that are split between their original parent regiments and their new parent brigades, not to mention the poor practice of simply grafting lineages onto units who are then declared to carry on some other unit's traditions. Given all this messing about by the desk warriors, it is a wonder that the army's brigades fight as well as they do. W. B. Wilson 16:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Flag of Alberta

message: I removed this. What is a hypothetical flag?! Needs explanation. The Singing Badger 19:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure but this is a Blue Ensign with the arms of Alberta. It was used to distinguish different brittish colonies, dominions, provinces. Australia has a Blue Ensign for official flag, Canada used to have a Red Ensign. I'm not sure this one was officially used by Alberta.--BarLaf 02:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So maybe whoever wrote 'hypothetical' meant 'non-official'? The Singing Badger 02:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no evidence it was ever used at all -- officially or unofficially.  I should have deleted the image as soon as it appeared in the article, but I marked it as "hypothetical" to avoid hard feelings with the editor who obviously went to a lot of work to draw the flag and upload it. Indefatigable 14:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This website seems to assert that it was used.  Andrwsc 18:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I have assessed this as a Stub, as it contains only the basic information on the subject, and of low importance, as it is a highly specific topic within Canada. Cheers, CP 22:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: Am I the only person who thinks the current version of the flag used in Wikipedia isn't a faithful reproduction?
 vs 
I have started a discussion if we should make/use a replacement at 
--Tvwade (talk) 07:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *After looking into the colours, the big issue is the with blue used flag background. I have since modified my version to represent the official colour as found in government literature. Discussion continued at . --Tvwade (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Faithful Reproduction?

message: Item                    	RGB           	RGB	CMYK           	CMYK	Pantone      	Pantone
Azure Sky               	13R 54G 146B  	   	100C 66M 0Y 2K 	    	286 C / 286 U	
Wheat Background        	254R 186G 53B 	   	0C 27M 76Y 0K  	    	136 C / 136 U	
Hills / Wild Rose Leaves	13R 104G 38B  	   	95C 0M 100Y 27K	    	356 C / 356 U	
Mountains               	189R 189G 189B	   	OC 0M 0Y 26K   	    	421 C / 421 U	
St. George's Cross      	252R 25G 33B  	   	OC 91M 76Y 0K  	    	185 C / 185 U	
Wheat                   	255R 235G 67B 	   	OC 8M 73Y 0K   	    	114 C / 114 U	
Reference: http://corporateidentity.gov.ab.ca/downloads/GoaCIM-1.0-Brand.pdf (page 54)
Pantone conversion: http://www.pantone.com/pages/pantone/colorfinder.aspx
--Svgalbertian (talk) 04:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Official Colours
Talk:Forum non conveniens

message: The article says that forum non conveniens concerns jurisdiction.  Does it?  It seems more accurate to say that it is about the ability of a court to choose not to hear a case -- even though it has the jurisdiction to do so -- due to the inconvenience of the forum for some of the parties.
:I would have to agree. FNC is a court discretionary power to refuse to hear a proceeding. It's easy to confuse with the jurisdiction analysis because it's so similar. --PullUpYourSocks 12:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Forum non conveniens -- is not about jurisdiction

message: Can someone please add an IPA pronunciation to this article?  Thanks, Selket Talk 19:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation  

message: The rule might exist in most common law countries, but I think it is important to know that a lot of civil law countries have a similar rule. In Norway, the civil procedure code (from january 2008) have a similar rule. This is a rule which up until this year was something the courts developed to find "the natural forum" for the case". Then the rule was codified, the legislator actually said the courts should look to Forum non conveniens in Scotland/England to develope the rule further. 
It also exist a similar rule in Sweden. 
It is not the same rule, but has similar principle: To find the most suitable court for the case to get a just result.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carors (talk • contribs) 11:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only in common law countries??? 
Talk:Tzeltal language

message: I have been improving the article, but I have had a hard time finding up-to-date data on the number of speakers. The article itself stated, before I started editing it, that Tzeltal has 280,000 speakers - but no source was given. Ethnologue only give the number of speakers of two of the dialects, Bachajón Tzeltal and Oxchuc Tzeltal. The Ethnologue record on Bachajón Tzeltal does however state that the figure is 215,145, which I have used in the article, but this data is almost 30 years old! Many sources cite I.N.E.G.I., but I haven't been able to find any data in the records myself. The Spanish Wikipedia has several figures. On the Tzeltal page it says 371,430, but on the page on languages of Mexico it says 336,448. Shklovsky (2005) on the other hand gives both the figures 265,000 and 278,000. -- Llonydd (talk) 14:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the list of Mayan languages says 190,000 and the page on the languages of Mexico says 371,730. Together, with the other figures I stated above, there are eight - and probably more - different figures of the number of speakers of the Tzeltal language. Are somebody able to find some up-to-date data, with a reliable source? -- Llonydd (talk) 12:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sorry about the inconvenience. I finally succeeded in finding some reliable and quite up-to-date information myself. I have updated the article. The figure is 371,730, and the source is I.N.E.G.I. -- Llonydd (talk) 12:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of speakers 

message: Is it OK or not OK to add a link to my undergrad thesis about Tzeltal language?
URL: http://linguistics.kirill.org/KS-thesis-large.pdf
: I think it's OK.  Hey, you had John Haviland as your advisor! -- MikeGasser (talk) 15:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice grammar!  FWIW, on the question of basic word order: another linguist and I once acted out a transitive sentence in which one of us hit the other.  The Tzeltal speaker accepted most orders (SV(O), OV(S), VOS; I don't recall whether SOV was acceptable), but did not accept VSO.  My assumption was that SV(O) and OV(S) orders represented topicalization, and that VOS was basic. Mcswell 18:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I cant make the link work.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:10, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: In the consonant table, the character for plosive apirated glottal stop is . However, the character used in the rest of the table is . I suspect these should actually be the same? Also wondering if they could all be converted to ASCII apostrophe for ease of use, or if we need to maintain these as letter-like characters as we do for  and friends. English Wikipedia generally uses ASCII apostrophe rather than the curved one, per MOS:STRAIGHT. -- Beland (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apostrophe-like character
Talk:Newark-Elizabeth Rail Link MOS-1

message: I saw this page when it was merely (MOS-1), so this is a step forward. But even with the name name, what does this add, Why not merely merge this with the Newark-Elizabeth Rail Link page within the section for MOS-1? Is there anything added by having a separate page other than a slight elaboration of the station stop locations? Alansohn 19:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raison d'etre
Template talk:Left Behind Characters

message: Should Jesus be listed as a character?  It sounds like he appears in the last book, and has a significant role. JohnWhitlock 19:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jesus not a character

message: Not sure Jonathan Stonagal and also "Cauthren" (can't remember the spelling) should really be listed as GC members aren't the faw too early in the plot to be considered so. Should they not be "Others". :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 09:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jonathan Stonagal

message: This template is HUGE.  The template is larger than most of the articles it links too!  Not only that, but should most of these characters have their own articles?  Maybe major characters, yes, but there's so many minor characters on this list.  I'll go sniffing around the WP:MOS to see if there's anything on nav templates, but I'm pretty sure this is breaking some kind of style guideline.  Lets make this better! -- Ned Scott 01:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree with the size issue, however I think most of the characters should stay although perhaps some of the minor ones can be merged to a "group" article, something like "Minor Tribulation Force characters" and "Minor Global Community characters". They could be referenced from the template agreed on still but direct into the appropriate section. On the template size two thoughts occur, This appears to use loads of space dues to it being basically a four column table, if this was dispensed with (using punctuation instead) it would save a great deal of space. The other approach would be to have a "main template which mention groups and go to the individual references from those articles, perhaps with templates for each group something like "". :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, as mentioned above, any MORE ideas!?:: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 11:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: This is indeed much better. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  this template is in need of reform 

message: I removed the Left Behind cover, as it was a violation of Wikipedia's fair use policy. Please remember that fair use images can only be used in the article main spaces (the main page though is an exception).--TBCΦtalk? 07:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use image
Talk:Illusionistic ceiling painting

message: Is it example of Baroque illusionistic painting? --Snek01 19:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly is. Johnbod (talk) 10:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I'm not sure how big the Illusionism (art) article is going to get, it's currently pretty stubby, but I thought I'd raise the prospect of merging the two without having a strong opinion either way. FlagSteward (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When Illusionism (art) got to be unwieldy in length then this article would be separated from it again. A move forward would be to edit a copy of this article down to a succinct stub and insert it there, with a main article hatnote, to demonstrate the nested relationshoip of the two articles. --Wetman (talk) 13:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with [[Illusionism (art)]]??
Talk:Agrahayana

message: In Chhattisgarh it is celebrated by everyone, homes are decorated with rangoli and women worship goddess laxmi every morning for every Thursday 110.224.164.111 (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chattisgarh
Talk:Piercing the corporate veil

message: In my edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Piercing_the_corporate_veil&oldid=1092957890) I've removed a half-complete sentence, but I'm unsure as to whether this sentence was perhaps a full sentence at one point and was accidentally severed?
--Ambientcalculus (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did a sentence go missing here?
Talk:Chlamydiota

message: I would mention that Chlamydiae belongs to the PVC (Planctomycetes, Verrucomicrobia, and Chlamydiae) superphylum.
--Kunadam (talk) 08:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  PVC superphylum 