lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Beetham

message: This link was added to the article after discussion on the WP Reliable Sources Noticeboard. See: WP:RSN exercise. No information from the CCHT link has been put into the body of the article in the form of citations because it has not yet been verified for 100% accuracy by the Victoria County History project for Cumbria. (This will take some years to do).  Laplacemat (talk) 10:01, 09 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: CCHT external link

message: The lands and title of the last baronet Roger de Betham were confiscated by the Cromwell government because he was a Royalist. Then a few years later was the restoration (James II). At this point the lands - or at least the baronetcy and title - should have been restored to the family Betham. They were not. This is still a sore point with the primogenitor descendants. Instead of simply deleting this section, consider that this is a matter of historic and legal interest for the readers of this talk page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.198.6 (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  baronetcy should be restored
Talk:Massapequa Park station

message: Massapequa Park station will have an elevator added by the end of 2024 + other accessibility upgrades. 67.82.187.70 (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accessibility
Talk:Henry Kable

message: Ok, I'm not editing this article, but there's a few points I'd like to make. 'Kable was known for being a businessman' should probably have something added like 'after he came to the colony'. 'On 10 February 1788 Kable married Susannah at St. Phillips in Sydney,' -- I don't think St. Phillips was built 2 weeks after the arrival of the first fleet. My memory says it was an open air ceremony. Under a tree. And it was a group wedding, either three or five couples so no one knows who was actually first. 'they attracted the attention of Lady Cadogan' because baby Henry was removed from Susannah and not allowed to be transported with her. After lobbying the baby was returned to her. If not the detail added then this should be added. 'Farmer George Esto' makes it look as if Farmer is his name. The Ramping Horse was at Windsor wasn't it? After he moved out there? I'm not sure about that. jayoval (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Issues with the article

message: From "Damned Rascals? A Chronicle of Henry & Susannah Kable 1764-1846" by Paul Kable & June Whittaker, published 2007, pages 20-21 (ISBN 9780646480831) we have a transcript from the Norfolk Chonicle of Saturday 22 March 1783 saying "On Tuesday last ... At the above assizes ... Henry Cabell, jun., for burglariously entering the dwelling house of Abigail Hambling, of Albugh, received sentence of death, but afterwards reprieved." Tuesday last was 18th March 1783. jayoval (talk) 03:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of Henry's conviction

message: I'm going to remove/replace family history sites as references because they are notorious for not having sources listed and for repeating mistakes in earlier sites. The main reference I am using, the book "Damned Rascals?" is a good source as it has photos and transcriptions of original material. It is a book of sources, basically, with a bit of narrative in between each.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayoval (talk • contribs) 04:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: I'm going to copy onto here some references I'm replacing ... for anyone else who is interested I suppose 
name=Ancestors>The Ancestors (Kable) jayoval (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: References 2 

message: It's important to remember that Wikipedia isn't a family history site. It's an encyclopedia. Information should be added when there is *documented* evidence. If you are not sure if you are adding information in the correct way please feel free to read the extensive information on the front page on how to contribute. jayoval (talk) 09:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: A note to editors

message: I've repaired links and fixed citations as best I can for now but if a more experience editor wants to check over the work I'd welcome the help. Cheers. jayoval (talk) 01:36, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: a bit better Dave Rave (talk) 10:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Enough for the time being

message: TALK TO ME!!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stella Kable (talk • contribs) 10:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  ????
Talk:Family Viewing Hour

message: I removed the label "conservative" from Bernard Goldberg and Zell Miller.  Goldberg has described himself an old liberal like JFK and Hubert Humphrey.  Zell Miller has been a life long democrat and has also said the Democratic party is not the same party of JFK.  Regardless, I think labeling their political views is irrelevant.  64.32.165.34 (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Conservative" Bernard Goldberg and Zell Miller
Talk:Valerianella

message: Is there any difference between Valerianella and Valeriana? I ask because on the French and Spanish wikipedias, there are pages for both Valerianella Locusta (Corn salad on the English wikipedia) and Valeriana Locusta, and I suspect they're talking about the same plant, although they have different pictures (in French, the page titles are different vernacular names for the same plant, but it's always possible that there really are two different species and the linguistic borders don't match the biological ones). I have found some web pages indicating this, but nothing clearly explaining that there are two names. Even if the two Locustas are the same plant, maybe there are still two genuses. What with bots automatically creating stubs and language links for these things, we really need to be clear on which genus name to use across wikipedias, make it clear that the other is an alternate name for the same thing, which redirects to it, and change them all at once. I'm not certain enough about the subject to do it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelastic (talk • contribs) 12:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Botanists generally consider Valerianella and Valeriana different now. They didn't always though. Valeriana locusta is an older name for Valerianella locusta.70.242.129.252 (talk) 00:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Valeriana

message: USDA Plants is promulgating some apparently bogus common names. "Lewiston cornsalad" for V. locusta, and "Benjamin Franklin Bush" for V. ozarkana. V. locusta is the "common cornsalad"; I can't figure out why it would need Lewiston associated with it.  Benjamin Franklin Bush appears at first glance to be a shrub/bush named for Benjamin Franklin. V. ozarkana is not a shrub. However, B.F. Bush was a botanist who worked in the area where V. ozarkana is found; the synonymous V. bushii was named for him.  I'm removing these common names; please do not add them back even though they appear in what is a generally reliable source (USDA Plants).  I'm also removing "Yemenite mache"; this purported common name is not found in the sole reference for Valerianella affinis, and is etymologically implausible. "Yemenite" is an older word that fell out in favor to "Yemeni" far before "mache" became a popular English term for "corn salad".Plantdrew (talk) 00:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  USDA Plants & bogus common names
Talk:Southeast (Vietnam)

message: Lam Dong province is listed here as being part of the Southeast (Dong Nam Bo) region, but the article for Lam Dong says that it is in the Central Highlands (Tay Nguyen) region. Should Lam Dong be deleted from the Dong Nam Bo page? Lincmad (talk) 19:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK, these regions are not official and thus one province can belong to many different regions depending on who you ask. DHN (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lam Dong province
Talk:Australian Hotels Association

message: A few broad points about what should be in this article, because there have been some issues with its editing. 
* See WP:NOT. It is not a soapbox and not a collection of recent news. The content should always be balanced, notworthy and about the article's subject to an appropriate level of depth.
* See WP:UNDUE: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." This means, for example, not covering activities of one branch of the AHA unduly compared to others. Of course, if there's more information baout the NSW Branch, then obviously it should not be ignored. And just because nothing has been added about the AHA in Victoria, doesn't mean nothing should be there for NSW. But a sense of perspective needs to be maintained.
* See WP:RECENTISM. WP articles should not be biased toward converage of recent events. Try to imagine writing about those events as though they took place ten years ago. If that were the case, how much would someone really need to know about them?
* Stylistically, an article should not have headings in it that lack any content. When there's content to add, then add a heading.
Please feel free to discuss further here on the talk page. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content of article 
Talk:Michael H. Moskow

message: This article was created based on a biography on the U.S. Federal Reserve web site. Based on WP:PD, I believe the text to be uncopyrighted. According to WP:PD, "For the U.S., federal government works are not eligible for copyright protection (17 USC 105)." --JHP 04:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncopyrighted
Talk:George Feher

message: I created this article on 2007/08/24. You can made contributions by adding more information. RS1900 04:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  George Feher 
Talk:Charles W. Froessel

message: Would someone please show me how to reduce the image size on the article page, without reducing the actual image itself?
Thank you.
tomrue (talk) 14:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Just wondering why someone removed the additions I had made about Judge Froesel's masonic career?
An active Freemason Froessel served as Grand Master of Masons in the State of New York for two terms, 1944 and 1945. (reference: A Masonic Portrait of the Empire State: New Millennium Commemorative Edition, Grand Lodge of New York, F&AM, 2000, New York City.) Froessel's "mother lodge" was Tadmor Lodge No. 923, founded in Ridgewood, Brooklyn, in 1914, but presently meeting in Astoria, Queens, New York. Froessel became a third-degree Mason and signed the by-laws of Tadmor Lodge on October 2, 1919, identifying his occupation as "lawyer" and his address as "230 Olmsted Place, Brooklyn," (reference: Records of Tadmor Lodge No. 923 F&AM) now 71st Street in Glendale, Queens, New York. (reference: http://stevemorse.org/census/changes/QueensChanges1_OtoQ.htm) He was the Master of Tadmor Lodge in 1926 when it dedicated its own Masonic Temple on Summerfield Street in Ridgewood. His five brothers joined the lodge that year.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMHNYC (talk • contribs) 02:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As I stated in the edit summary, his masonic activities are "irrelevant trivia", except the mention that he was at some time Grand Master of New York. Almost all politicians and notable members of the community in the United States are freemasons, elks, rotarians and/or odd fellows. Wikipedia is not "Who's Who", an encyclopedia has a different scope. Kraxler (talk) 13:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits re Judge Froesel's masonic career
Talk:Performances of The Vagina Monologues

message: This article was split off from the main The Vagina Monologues article, recognizing that it is unsourced. My creating this doesn't necessarily endorse its appropriateness . --ZimZalaBim talk 04:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Note

message: Why would this article need citation?  Millions of people around the world have seen The Vagina Monologues.  Millions of people can therefore verify the truth of what is written here.  As for the cast of people who have delivered the Vagina Monologues over the years, I personally remember Loretta Swit, Ruthie Henshall and Caprice, all of whom get a mention on this page.  I think it is very useful to have all of those people listed here.  Where else would I find such a wonderful reference work on this matter?
In what way, precisely, does this article "need citation"?
Richard Gillard 05:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Millions of people having seen" this play isn't quite the verifiable info necessary for inclusion in wikipedia.  Each listing would need a verifiable source to justify it's inclusion, or the info risks deletion.  207.237.33.36 (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs citation.  Why?
Talk:Somewhere in the Night (Helen Reddy song)

message: There are several songs with the title "Somewhere in the Night", why one of them is highlighted is beyond me. The version of "Somewhere in the Night," written by Billy May and Milton Raskin, deserves as much prominence as the any other. Does anyone monitor the information that gets put into Wikipedia for favoritism? It's nice that Kim Carnes sang the Richard Kerr and Will Jennings version, and because the Billy May and Milton Raskin version was the theme song (in the final year only) of the TV series "The Naked City", it also deserves a bit more mention.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob em (talk • contribs) 02:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Sandra Pianalto

message: This article was created based on a biography on the U.S. Federal Reserve web site. Based on WP:PD, I believe the text to be uncopyrighted. According to WP:PD, "For the U.S., federal government works are not eligible for copyright protection (17 USC 105)." --JHP 04:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncopyrighted
Talk:Expo Pilipino

message: Princereyn 04:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://web.archive.org/web/20080515130642/http://www.wowphilippines.com.ph/explore_phil/place_details.asp?content=thingstodo&province=12. 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.  Mkativerata (talk) 11:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 
Template talk:Category link without namespace

message: Did I miss the part where it tells what the heck this template is? -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 04:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

message: This template is in :Category:Function templates, but that is now a redirect to :Category:Wikipedia formatting and function templates.  Please update the category link.  --Russ (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: --Stephen 05:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: editprotected

message: Update to compatibility with the commons version, so the pipetrick below works...
:";American people who are " (...in syntax/use: .})
Replace:

with/Install: 

Thanks // FrankB 15:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: . Would you mind updating the documentation subpage (which I also created)? Thanks, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: editprotect II

message: * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AC&diff=640493806&oldid=640456594
: (Take this to the talk page... This is a revert of added functionality that was not discussed; any 'breakage' is a result of the initial change.)
This sounds nonsensical, as (1) it suggests any and every change requires previous discussion; and (2) the template was working before this edit – i.e. it was this edit that caused it to malfunction.
Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Any breakage is caused by the addition of the  parameter, shifting the other unnamed parameters by one position. We discussed adding unnamed parameters before, and why this is a bad thing. It breaks backward compatibility, and in an ironic twist of self-referential argument, is the second reason I reverted. The first being that link templates should not use icons, not before reaching consensus anyway. It's fluff and does not add any value to the template. Most readers don't know the icon stands for anyway. -- User:Edokter  13:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

text: Also, the icon in question requires attribution, which means it must link to it's onw file description page, and therefor unsuitable in this context. -- User:Edokter  14:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

text: * I didn't see any malfunction caused by the parameter handling, so I don't understand your first statement. I also don't see how it didn't – or, in future, couldn't be amended to – handle backward compatibility. The "ironic twist" is that I have no particular fondness for icons preceding links; my edit was to simplify something already in practice. Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit causing template to malfunction
File talk:ThisWeekInGod.jpg

message: The uploader seems to be not particularly active at present. I noticed the advice of need to a fair use rationale on his talk page, checked out the image, and was struck by how crucial the image is for giving a decent understanding of the relevant segment. So I went ahead to add the rationale myself. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 04:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale added 

message: What episode is this from? :) --76.177.17.164 (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help?
Talk:Thomas M. Hoenig

message: This article was created based on a biography on the U.S. Federal Reserve web site. Based on WP:PD, I believe the text to be uncopyrighted. According to WP:PD, "For the U.S., federal government works are not eligible for copyright protection (17 USC 105)." --JHP 04:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncopyrighted
Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Islam and antisemitism

message: Forgive me for involving myself, but I find it ridiculous that these issues even need to be mediated. The only questionable listing is number 5, and I would probably say no' to that one. What good reason is there not to include such information? I'm afraid that it seems the only possibility is that someone simply doesn't like what's being said. These things occurred, and they deserve to be covered as much as any other historical even which remains on Wikipedia. Please, this whole thing is a waste of time. The 5th issue is the only one anyone should bother discussing (or mediating, in this case).--C.Logan 04:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably the phraising of the issues is what gave you that idea. I made some corrections to better represent the issues.--SefringleTalk 05:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're correct. I'm already on one side of a few of these. However, issue 4 would certainly need to be shown some elaboration, because as it stands, it makes a curious contradiction to the article's subject matter.--C.Logan 06:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

message: All parties,
It has come to my attention that one or more parties have been reverting the article rather than attempting mediation. Several requests were made for me to decide whether or not sources merited inclusion. This is not the role of the mediator. As mediator, my role is to help you reach a compromise by encouraging mutual discussion, not by issuing proclamations on the appropriateness of subject matter (whether such proclamations are binding, or otherwise). Also, it seems that the discussions are somewhat circular on this page, and parties are not willing to compromise sufficiently to reach any sort of mutual ground. As such, I feel this mediation case has no real prospect of success and that alternative means of dispute resolution may be necessary.
Regards,
Deskana (talk) 00:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: so what do you suppose are the "alternate means?" Outright discussion without any suggestion of a compromise probably won't resolve this dispute, and I have noticed on other mediations that compromises are sometimes proposed as a way of dispute resolution, something I haven't seen occur by anyone here. Yahel Guhan 01:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fear that without Deskana's mediation, there will again be much disputes and edit warring - with no end in sight. Surely, wikipedia isn't supposed to work this way. There must be a way to resolve disputes (other than reverting). Before you terminate mediation, I request 1) that you reconsider and 2) that you point out the next steps we must take to resolve these disputes.Bless sins 03:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Termination of mediation
Talk:Mary Baker Eddy Library

message: Hello,
the first sentence says The Mary Baker Eddy Library is a lending library, but that is no longer the case. It ceased lending, or "circulating," material in 2011. It is now solely a "research" library. Its collection is non-circulating, and focused on specialized topics. http://www.marybakereddylibrary.org/research
Would you please consider replacing the word "lending" in the opening sentence with "research"?
Thank you, Bridge bendek COI 15:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the updated info! DMacks (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you DMacks. Bridge bendek COI 16:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  No longer "lending" library 
Talk:Eric S. Rosengren

message: This article was created based on a biography on the U.S. Federal Reserve web site. Based on WP:PD, I believe the text to be uncopyrighted. According to WP:PD, "For the U.S., federal government works are not eligible for copyright protection (17 USC 105)." --JHP 04:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncopyrighted
Talk:Gary H. Stern

message: This article was created based on a biography on the U.S. Federal Reserve web site. Based on WP:PD, I believe the text to be uncopyrighted. According to WP:PD, "For the U.S., federal government works are not eligible for copyright protection (17 USC 105)." --JHP 05:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncopyrighted
Talk:Pick Up the Pace

message: * Remove the rock band link from band
**  — Dihydrogen Monoxide 04:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks mate. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 04:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Passed. M3tal H3ad (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA review
Talk:Cement Cement

message: It states the song 'Get what you want' as a single? Shouldn't it be song, as it hasn't been released as a single. andrewrox424 Bleep 09:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single? 
Talk:Todd Boeckman

message: The bulk of this short articles was copied directly from an online scouting report. I deleted the copied material nad left a link to the report.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio