lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Stoke Poges

message: PROCOL HARUM recorded in November 1968 a song called Stoke Poges and was inspired bij the poet Thomas Gray. A great song it was. 
The song has been unreleased. 
Eric van Havelte/ Holland.
:Could you provide a reference for this?  If so it could go in the article itself somewhere. -- Francs2000  16:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

message: I have seen "Stoke Pogis" in at least two old books. Worth mentioning? Perhaps a redirect page at Stoke Pogis to here?--BillFlis 12:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can provide a decent ref for it, bung it in! -- Roleplayer 13:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternate spelling?

message: The article contains significant content which appears to have been copied from Stoke Poges Parish Council website and South Bucks District Council website. Please review the article and rewrite or remove any offending content. --Scribble Monkey (talk) 08:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright violation
Talk:Regular local ring

message: In the definition of regular, I think a stronger condition than just m=(a_1, \ldots, a_n) is needed. Perhaps that a_1, \ldots a_n is a minimal generating set for m would do.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hold up, 
"Another property suggested by geometric intuition is that the localization of a regular local ring should again be regular. Geometrically, this corresponds to the intuition that if a surface contains a curve, and that curve is smooth, then the surface is smooth near the curve."
What about the example of say the surface of two cones joined at their pointy ends. A straight line that runs from one to the other is smooth, but the surface is not locally smooth around the point of intersection?!?129.215.104.179 (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Header to organize random weirdly formatted comments below) 

message: Why are all the examples of regular rings in the article completions, rings of formal power series like kx? Is not the localization of k[x] at say (x) a regular local ring, a simpler example? Is there some reason why the only examples given in the article are completions? -lethe talk [ +] 22:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  some relationship between regular and complete? 

message: For the sake of accuracy and efficiency, I think it's better to have just one article on regular rings and regular local rings (as they are essentially the same concept). Since "regular local ring" is a more common term, that means to merge regular ring into this article. -- Taku (talk) 01:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Klbrain (talk) 10:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger with (from) [[regular ring]]
Talk:L'écume des jours (opera)

message: I translated the synopsis from the Russian original written by Denisov himself. It has to be properly checked by English-speaking specialist.
(Meladina 16:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have done a first edit, though it needs more work. Best - Kleinzach 22:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have done a bit more. - Kleinzach 09:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]
Talk:Walter Stewart, 3rd High Steward of Scotland

message: The link to justicar is red, though if it is spelled justiciar it will be blue. Is there any difference between scottish and english here? --FinnBjo 16:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scots usage is justiciar, so a spellng problem I think. It should say "a justiciar", as there was more than one. Checking, Geoffrey Barrow says Walter was Justiciar for Scotia, Scotland north of the Forth & Clyde. I'll fix that. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 16:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I can't find any information to back up the claim in this article that Walter Stewart was also known as Walter Og. Unless someone references it soon, I plan to remove this erroneous data. Rincewind42 (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Walter Og? 

message: There is exactly zero data that allows us to pinpoinnt his birthyear to 1198 or even within a decade earlier from this date.  If anyone insists on claiming a particular year, let them cite the *full authoritative quote* which makes this claim.Wjhonson (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthyear
Talk:Christianity/Archive 31

message: LostCaesar's suggestion above that we include coverage of ecclesiology is an excellent one. While I continue to believe that certain subjects don't need to be split by denomination (e.g., Catholics on the Trinity and Baptists on the Trinity would be redundant), in this case I think the differences are extensive enough that a denominational structure is the only rational way to cover it. Here's what I would add: the section on weekly worship services loses coherence by trying to cover too many disparate things at once. (Also it has bullet points where it should have prose.)
So here's my suggestion: Ecclesiology, "Weekly worship services", and "Sacraments" would go into an overall section on "doing church" and would be subdivided into Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, Reformed, Baptist, etc. etc.  A.J.A. 16:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you A.J.A., I think.  If I understand you correctly, you are proposing we write, for example, on Sacraments, stating what is in common and then which groups have differinig views or processes?  Is that accurate?  Storm Rider (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. That's how we cover the Trinity, but here I don't think there's enough in common for that to work. I suppose you could group Catholics, Orthodox, and certain Anglicans and Lutherans together, but even here there would be a need for constant qualifications. For example, Orthodox understand Apostolic succession differently and don't recognize episcopi vagante, and, as I understand it, neither affirm nor deny substance-and-accident transubstantiation.  A.J.A. 17:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Extending a bit: what truely is common -- sermons, singing, the Supper, baptism -- can be described in very general terms, by simply saying Christians practice these things, but once we get into specifics there are so many differences a single coherent description is impossible. So the section can have an intro paragraph saying, essentially, "Christians gather once a week and do X, Y, and Z" followed by the denominational subsections I proposed above.  A.J.A. 17:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Covering ecclesiology, sacramentology, etc. 

message: The Controversy section is currently tagged as containing weasel words. Can someone speak up about specifics? Str1977 (smile back) 19:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy
Talk:Tatsu

message: The History section as it currently appears isn't really the history of the ride so much as a retelling of the construction of the ride, probably taken from the Discovery Channel episode of Mega Builders. I don't know how accurate those dates are. Perhaps the construction company had a goal of April 8, but the only date that Six Flags announced was the first press day of April 29, 2006. I also don't think this much construction detail needs to be in a coaster article.—JlACEer (talk) 06:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What else would we put in the history section? In most articles, a roller coaster is built and there's no news about it for 20 years.--Astros4477 (talk) 15:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering why everyone feels a new coaster needs a "history" section. I just don't think all of these details are necessary, like the fact that one of the footings was too large or that everyone on the crew signed the piece of track when it was topped off (that's pretty common). I prefer something along the lines of Cheetah Hunt or separate the construction and delays like was done with Maverick (roller coaster).—JlACEer (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that. I like having a history section because if there was no history section, a lot of articles would stand no chance at being promoted to GA or FA. I actually think there are four milestones for a ride. When construction started, when it was topped off, when the track was finished and when it opened.-- Astros4477 (Talk)  20:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps this discussion should move to WP:AP. Either way, so what are we including and not including in history sections (even in other articles)?--Dom497 (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think all coasters (I might even say all articles) should have a history section. What to include in it is another story. The things highlighted by JlACEer above probably shouldn't be included. I'm more with Astros, although I'd also add to the list any further information on the ride's original announcement and marketing/promotions to build up to the opening (e.g. teaser campaigns, first rider auctions). Once the ride is open there's also the potential to include notable modifications and ridership milestones among other things. Themeparkgc  Talk  23:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: History?
Talk:Syberia (video game)

message: A friend of a friend said that there were books with the same plot as the Syberia games, is this true?
: I wish there were. Syberia was created by a noted graphic novel artist and writer, but Syberia was created specifically for video games. 23skidoo 03:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syberia Books? 

message: Contrary to the recent edits by an I.P., Syberia was published in Canada by Microids, and in the U.S. by The Adventure Company. Green451 03:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publisher 

message: There is one statement in particular that strikes me:
The game is unusual in that it also contains a dramatic subplot, conducted via calls received on Kate's cell phone, involving Kate's deteriorating relationship with her fiancé. Many though find the subplot concerning Kate's social relations with her boss and her fiance annoying. It gives some background to the character, but offers nothing to the main story.
This, and a few other things should be worked on to bring the article in line with WP:NPOV.  I'll work on it when I have some more time. Green451 00:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote the first sentence quoted (it's perfectly NPOV) -- except I don't recall using the word "unusual", and I have no idea where the "review" in the rest of the paragraph came from. I'll delete it right away myself. 23skidoo 03:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words 

message: Um, the phrase that reads "the guidelines first established by LucasArts" or something similar, about not being able to die or get stuck...did they establish those guidelines before Cyan Worlds created Myst? Because if not, I think Cyan might have a prior claim...
Zander nyrond 14:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, LucasArts put out their first SCUMM adventure game, Maniac Mansion in 1987, whereas Myst didn't come out until 1993.  And, you can get stuck in a losing or unwinable position in Myst... Green451 15:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Guidelines

message: I recently minorly edited the opening for some grammar a little. See if you can notice the changes! EMachine03 (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammar and spelling

message: Can someone please put the Nintendo Switch version of the game on the page http://www.microids.com/lineup-2017/en.htm?platform=hootsuite Snowyday (talk) 13:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Nintendo Switch version
Talk:Ed Boyce

message: 70.90.122.65, you heavily edited this article.  I'm not sure why you would strip out information about Boyce's place of birth in Ireland, James Hawley's role in helping form the WFM, Boyce's denunciation of the blacklist while in the state legislature, Boyce's role in founding the WFM's journal, Boyce's marriage to Eleanor Day and her role in the early WFM, Boyce's recommendation that "Big Bill" Haywood assume leadership in the WFM, information about Boyce's post-union career in the hotel business and as a mine owner, or Eleanor Boyce's life after her husband's death.  I also noticed that you altered the Wiki link to strike action.  While Wikipedia strongly encourages articles to be edited and upgraded, many of these changes seem not to accomplish that.  Additionally, if you feel this information needs to be cited, you should use the appropriate Wikipedia tag (such as  or ) to note that rather than simply remove the information.  I strongly encourage you to help improve Wikipedia, and to edit and improve articles.  But following Wikipedia's guidelines in this regard is best rather than just editing articles to suit your own tastes or views. - Tim1965 19:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits of April 6-7

message: Something seems wrong here:
"In late 1899, Boyce established the WFM's journal, the Miner's Magazine. The first issue came out in early 1890."
If it was established in 1899, the first issue came out 9 years before it was established. Richard Myers (talk) 06:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miners Magazine date needs to be researched
Talk:Public Opinion (TV series)

message: I moved this article to it's new title but provided "Philippine" as the reason.  The real reason is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television).  If you have any questions feel free to ask --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 17:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Absheron District

message: This article spends its time talking about the history and origin of the peninsula, but the map shows that the rayon barely touches the geographic feature due to the size of the Baku and Sumgait territories.  I have made the image to the right highlighting of just the peninsula.  I was about to create its own article, but then I realized there would be nothing left in this article if I did.  Any suggestions?  -- Bobak 17:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The articles about the rayon and the peninsula should probably be split. --Golbez 18:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to defer making the changes to those who are more familiar with the two regions and what should go where.  Feel free to use the image at right, of course :-) --  Bobak 19:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I don't mind you making it. You cited my work, which, I do believe, is the first time a derivative work of one of my maps has ever mentioned where it came from. ;) As for separating, it seems to make sense. Labrador and Labrador Peninsula; San Francisco and San Francisco Peninsula; Italy and Italian Peninsula; etc. It also is a notable point that the Absheron rayon makes up very little of the Absheron peninsula. :) As for what should go where, I'll take a look at it. --Golbez 20:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually only three out of more than 40 villages was ever tat speaking and still some sick people claim that! I am from Absheron and my family never spoke tat!--Elsanaturk 13:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the peninsula and the rayon be separated?
Talk:Veteris

message: Gwythr can hardly have been derived from *weteros, because in that position t would have gone to d; and why should the second e be syncopated? In Welsh, *weteros would have become something like *gweder; for Gwythr we're looking for something more like *wixtros. QuartierLatin1968  17:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: Is there any evidence the name was Veteris in the nominative, as opposed to e.g. "Veter"? Draco argenteus (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No, unless I'm mistaken, there isn't any such evidence. AFAIK the inscriptions all refer to Veteri in the dative. Q·L·1968 ☿ 23:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Veteris
Talk:Enriched category

message: :Merged from Talk:Enriched functor, now a redirect to here.
I've just rewritten the article.  No offense to  intended, but the article we had before was completely incomprehensible.  The article is nothing but a definition though (both before and after the rewrite) and I think it should probably be merged into enriched category.  Any opinions?  Is anyone watching this article? -lethe talk [ +] 01:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean, we also have enriched-category-theoretic definitions for natural transformations.  Do we give an independent article to every enriched-category analogue of a category-theoretic concept? -lethe talk [ +] 14:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  rewrite, now merge? 

message: Is there any particular reason? Is the problem in my browser? --Acepectif 04:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are all the images color-reversed? 

message: "For each object A in C, the identity arrow idA must be an arrow in M from I to the hom-object Hom(A,A)..."
So, an arrow of one category is also an arrow of another one with diffent domain and codomain.
Very counterintuitive. Define it as correspondence rather than identity.
--84.228.240.181 (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:   Correspondance not identity 

message: At least, not in general.  It's only when the hom-objects (of M) have some kind of canonical realization as sets (which happens to be the case for M=Set, M=2, and the other examples given thus far) that the corresponding enriched categories are indeed categories, otherwise they're not.  An example of the latter would be Lawvere's metric spaces where M is the real numbers ordered by >=, i.e., the hom-object is merely a number, composition is the triangle inequality, there's no notion of individual morphism, and thus no way to view this as a traditional category.  I may try to edit this in. 
Rfcrew (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enriched categories are ''not'' categories 

message: Now that I've merged, I see that I've introduced an unfortunate inconsistency in the notation.  In the functors section, objects are denoted with miniscule a,b in contrast to the majuscule A,B in the rest of the article.  Hom-objects are denoted C(a,b), instead of Hom(A,B) (which might prefer to be written Hom_C(A,B) in the functor section).  Do you think this is bad enough to merit redoing the diagrams?  Probably so. -lethe talk [ +] 18:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent notation 

message: in a text: "0 ≥ d(a,a)". Inequality is usually in opposite direction. --Jj14 (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are you sure?
Talk:Jefferson's Manual

message: :Several states have therefore introduce bills which, if passed, could begin the impeachment process.[4]
Not quite sure that could is more accurate than would - it depends on the actual rules. would is not definite, but it means something is expected.
E.g. If GWBush went to Iraq and was kidnapped by insurgents and they cut his head off, then GWBush would be dead - not could be dead. or: If Sarkozy won the next French presidential election, then he would become president. This one is less than 100% sure - he might die of a heart attack between the election and the official date of becoming president. But "could" would be too weak here. If we want to be really careful, we could say "he would in the normal run of things become president".
On the other hand, for this particular case, i don't know the procedure enough to know if passing any of the state bills would necessarily "begin the impeachment process". Someone would have to, or could, ;) read more in order to make a reasonable judgment...
My 2 cents. Boud 17:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it to "could" because, to the best of my knowledge, there is no way that a state legislature can compel the U.S. Congress to do anything.  I've looked at the Jefferson Manual, and don't see anything in there that appears to me to require the House to act when presented with a resolution of impeachment from a state legislature.  In the normal course of business, the majority in the House has nearly absolute control over what matters are and are not considered on the floor; absent evidence to the contrary, I assume that would continue to be true.  If anyone can find language from the House rules that credibly says otherwise, I'd be willing to look at it.  But right now, with a Republican majority in the House, my best guess is that any such resolution would get buried in a committee, never to be seen again.  Maybe the Dems will win back the House in the fall.  Then maybe Speaker Pelosi would take action.  Or maybe neither of those things would happen.  Since it's a procedure which (again, to the best of my knowledge) has never been used before, it seems highly speculative. Brandon39 06:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I'd like to see some references for the claims made in the Impeachment section.  There's a narrative in there about accessing the GPO website and looking at the Text vs. PDF versions of the site; this is rather un-Wikipedia-like for an article and should be cleaned up, and should have some references added to go along with it.  --CapitalR 13:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impeachment section
Talk:Arjan Brussee

message: Needs expansion, especially the game developer part, otherwise it risks being deleted as a vanity page. --Vossanova 17:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Alan Parsons in a Winter Wonderland

message: What is the point of a one line stub?! --kingboyk 17:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

message: Apparently a Merge is contested ... are we going to try for a plain-jane redirect? 
A Keep (as is) was definatly not consensus. Exit2DOS  • Ctrl • Alt • Del 16:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: To quote the closer of the AfD: "The result was Keep. There is a clear consensus against deletion. The consensus to keep versus merge or redirect is less clear". If you have a problem with the AfD outcome, please take it to DRV. Your merge just didn't fit well in the band's article at all.--Michig (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't forget that he also stated: "further discussion on the desirability of a merge or redirect can take place on the article's talk page if desired" ... apparently discussion is something you do not desire. Exit2DOS  • Ctrl • Alt • Del 22:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't the one who carried out a hamfisted merge without any attempt at discussion, now was I?--Michig (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ouch! so we should both work to make a Merge work then. Or are you going to revert all attempts at a merge? Exit2DOS  • Ctrl • Alt • Del 23:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

text: The best option is for you to take part in the merge discussion at Talk:Grandaddy.  Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as progress is being made, I am just letting it go. I'm not going to let anyone stress me into anothere Wikibreak, no matter how...--BITE MY TONGUE--sigh. Exit2DOS  • Ctrl • Alt • Del 00:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge or Redirect
Talk:Circle K Classic

message: can someone recorrect my table so it just shows the the number, teams, time, and arena —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadian21 (talk • contribs) 
:I removed some HTML that was breaking the rest of the page.  However, I wonder if it is necessary to list the games and results of the tournament on this article itself.  It seems to me that simply linking to the chart on the official webpage would be sufficient. Resolute 01:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  HELP
Talk:Military Air Transport Service

message: The article has the names Military Air Transportation Service and Military Air Transport Service.  According to this, it was Military Air Transport Service. --rogerd 23:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transportation or Transport 

message: Am eliminating some of the repetitious language in the Overview. Herbivore 00:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean up