lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:UFO conspiracy theories

message: The APFN does not appear to be a reliable source yet it is the sole source currently supporting the material about Phil Schneider, it seems.  —PaleoNeonate – 02:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Google search Schneider + Dulce and lots of non-RS tabloids and UFO enthusiast books turn up with mentions of Schneider supposedly witnessing or being told of a battle between aliens and humans in a secret underground base. Here is the least fringy source I could find, a book by a paranormal writer who is somewhat skeptical and published by McFarland & Company. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  It doesn't seem very critical to me, but at least it's not transcripts on an advocacy website.  It also seems to include more details.  Thanks again for your work on Wikipedia BTW, we meet less these days, as I'm rarely active.  —PaleoNeonate – 23:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I noticed this edit that appears to be classic WP:OR — from a contributor who has been around long enough to know better. Perhaps there are secondary sources yet to be added? - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Gladly self-reverted -- the intent was to immediately add a second source linking the obit to the folklore, but I got interrupted.  Upon reflection, even well-sourced it wouldn't really be an improvement.  Feoffer (talk) 06:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schneider 

message: Along with problems related to dubious sourcing, this article contains a lot of content that has nothing to do with conspiracy theories per se. Simply listing alleged UFO sightings and assuming an underlying conspiracy is inappropriate WP:OR. I'm beginning to remove such off-topic content, along with material attached to non-WP:FRIND sources. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of dubious sourcing remains in this article. The writing is quite good, but is it reasonable or appropriate for an encyclopedia article to depend so heavily on pro-conspiracy organizations/authors as sources for conspiracy theories? Perhaps this article should include only notable UFO-related conspiracies directly covered by WP:FRIND sources. Reasonable minds might, of course, disagree about that, so please share your opinions here. I might also take this issue/question to FTN. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don’t think we need to be laundry listing every single claim made by Ufologist types to get the point across on what a ufo conspiracy theory is. I also concur that the article should shy away from overtly fixating on the simple belief in UFOs as alien in origin- the actual meat and potatoes is the belief that “the government” is actively hovering it up. Paragon Deku (talk) 01:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content not related to conspiracy theories
Talk:Jerry Dunphy

message: Oops. Was I supposed to note sources somewhere? (I'm quite new here.)MichaelCaricofe 05:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Old Believers

message: I notice several occasions under the heading "Reforms of Nikon" which reference the "Russian Missal." This strikes me as a non-ideal choice of words since the missal is, properly speaking, part of Western Christian tradition.
I have no expertise in the reforms and so I am unsure of the exact book being referenced (horologion, archieratikon, etc.), but if anyone knows, I think clarifying and de-Latinizing the terminology in this section would be worthwhile. Jevhenij (talk) 12:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the term "missal"
Talk:Daniel Jones (musician)

message: I reverted the article to its previous version. One thing is not accepting that Daniel made Savage Garden split, and another thing is saying that he didn't do anything but getting half the money. Please.
This article seriously needs to get expanded a little bit. I may do it myself in the next few days, but I'll probably need some native speaker of English to check it later. Unless someone else decides to expand the article him/herself. :)--Pecholobo 06:36, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job, people need to leave their emotional baggage out of this article -- Sunhawk 18:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV anyone?

message: Why is there a pic of Mr Hussein here? :D 81.234.110.242 18:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because someone vandalised the article. If you see it happening, please revert the article to the last genuine update. I have reverted the article this time around. Aubergine Girl 19:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism
Talk:The Five Boroughs

message: The term New York itself is often taken to refer to the State of New York.
:I don't agree. The term New York (by itself) is highly ambigious in New York City, but almost never is it used to refer to the State of New York (to which city residents might refer as New York State or even Albany.) New York can refer to the (entire) city (as in "Only in New York...") or to Manhattan (esp. in the outer boroughs.) E.g., in Staten Island Ferry terminology, the northern destination of the ferry route is known only as New York, never as Manhattan. --ThorstenNY 06:40, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of ''New York'' in New York City 

message: In reading about this fake "colloquialism", notice how the word "Manhattan" was avoided in the former text:
::"'The Five Boroughs' is a colloquialism often used by residents of New York City to unambiguously refer to the city itself, as opposed to any particular borough or to the greater metropolitan area."
Manhattan is the elephant in the room. As a real New Yorker, I have substituted some reality-based text for this wishful evocation of "grassroots" fakelore and linked it specifically to the map. --Wetman 05:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Avoiding the Elephant

message: There's definitely no "invariable answer" as to the order the boroughs are listed. I live in New York City and it's not like people memorize them in school in some fixed order. I've removed the last paragraph... I myself say "Manhattan, Queens, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Staten Island", and it's just the way that I think about bridges. Anyone who answers this merely shows a bias one way or another. MMZach 02:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Invariable" 

message: This should probably be moved to omit "The", per naming conventions.  81.104.165.184 17:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Oppose - Only because I feel that this article should not even exist, but should be merged into the article Borough (New York City) anyway. No point in having two separate articles about two almost identical topics. — Larry V (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, merge it, then. —Nightstallion (?) 11:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Oppose - Only because I feel that this article should not even exist, but should be merged into the article Borough (New York City) anyway. No point in having two separate articles about two almost identical topics. — Larry V (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, merge it, then. —Nightstallion (?) 11:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey
Talk:Maciej Rataj

message: If he was arrested in December 1940, then he couldn't have been executed in June 1940, right? So maybe that's supposed to say he was executed in June 1941, half a year after his arrest, or maybe the month is wrong and it should say June, or some earlier month. Everyking 07:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:The Secret Life of a Satanist

message: Man,  this sets the table...CS
The problem with the book is he leaves you thinking hes a charlaton because on one hand he gives you the idea he does not believe in Satan and the next he's talking like be believes in a literal Satan which will confuse a person that new to Satanism.
TheTempleofthefreespirit 19:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Volcae

message: :The following text concerning etymology has been suppressed by an editor who substitutes roughly comparable unreferenced assertions:
::Folk etymology relates the name Volcae to the English word "folk", derived from Proto-Germanic *fulka "people" or "host". Another possibility would be derivation from PIE ulkwos "wolf" (cf. Russian Волк = volk with Latin alphabet). This is also unlikely, since the expected P-Celtic form of the word would be *volp-. A more likely suggestion is a derivation from PIE *velk, a word for water or dampness (Old Irish failc "bathe"; cognate to English wallow, welkin ; c.f. Volga), according to which the Volcae would have been the "river people" . The Proto-Germanic sound change that altered Volcae into *walha (that is: *k→h) is known as Grimm's law, so that the contact between the Volcae and the early Germanic tribes would have occurred before that sound change, in the later 1st millennium BC.
:The etymology of Volcae needs a brief, clear discussion, based on recent published material, not Internet websites. Could someone competent do this? --Wetman 21:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both the etymologies asserted in the text are dubious. The Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru (the major Welsh dictionary) says that gwalch is a Germanic loanword too, just as Latin falco is (but from a different word). The Celtic word often held to be descended from the Indo-European word for "wolf" is usually reconstructed as *ulkʷos (not *wolkʷos!), but it's never attested in the meaning "wolf". In Old Irish, olc means "bad, evil", and in Lepontic Ulkos is a personal name. (Granted, "Wolf" is a more likely meaning for a personal name than "Evil" is, but you never know.) Lepontic is likely to actually be P-Celtic, but even in Gaulish (known to be P-Celtic) there are occasional inscriptions with /kʷ/ or /k/, so it seems that the kʷ>p change was areal and didn't reach all Gaulish-speaking areas. There is a Proto-Celtic word wolkʷos (given in Matasović's etymological dictionary), but it seems to have meant "wet weather" (Middle Irish folc "heavy rain" and Middle Welsh golchi "to cleanse, wash"). So maybe the Volcae were the tribe of bad weather? Can't put that in without a source, naturally, but neither the "hawk" theory nor the "wolf" theory actually matches up with known Celtic words. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The GPC is probably wrong here (note that there are many outdated, incorrect etymologies in the GPC). No reason to believe that the purely Celtic "hawk" etymology is wrong. Cagwinn (talk) 04:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology

message: I have restored the sourced text that was deleted in favor of a misunderstanding of the relationship between "Volcae" and the subgroup "Volcae Tectosages", and restored "Volca Arecomici" to the article. Is the current arrangement clearer? --Wetman 21:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Restored text
Talk:Paul Grice

message: The summary provided in the article, beginning from "He distinguished between four kinds of content: encoded / non-encoded content and truth-conditional / non-truth-conditional content" may be correct as a logical reconstruction of Grice's theories, but it would be helpful to be directed to the place in Grice's work (if there is one) where he draws these actual distinctions.  The same applies to the remainder of the summaries.  
And the 'Criticism' section needs expansion, to include, e.g., Wayne A. Davis.  It is misleading, surely, to say that Sperber and Wilson 'challenge' Grice's ideas, since they are so heavily dependent on them? 194.81.81.51 13:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, these aren't Grice's concepts at all, just distant relatives of them. Grice's key notions of meaning are "utterer's occasion meaning" (which is now most commonly called "speaker meaning"), timeless meaning (which is the kind of meaning possessed by utterance-types, including but not limited to words and sentences), and applied timeless meaning. These notions are enumerated in Logic and Conversation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.146.174 (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources needed 

message: Their should be a section in this article about Grice's Maxims. This is his notable theory of co-operation in convrsation. His Maxims are rules that Grice said should be followed in order to have a suucessful conversation, these maxims are: Quanitity, Relevance, Manner and Quality.--BusinessMan1 11:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grice's Maxims

message: Did he ever publish anything as "Paul Grice"?  Surely that should be "H.P. Grice"?KD Tries Again (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  His book 'Studies in the Ways of Words' is published under that name.  So is his contribution to the Grandy/Warner collection.109.148.117.29 (talk) 12:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Could someone add a resolution to the paradox? It is inherently unobvious.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.72.182 (talk) 02:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grice's Paradox 

message: I have restored (iii) to the "paradox" section
G. Robert Shiplett 13:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism by an unsigned? 

message: Grice wrote :
  To date there have been 100 games: 
then he writes:
  They played on of the 100 games last night.
From "Studies in the Way of Words"
G. Robert Shiplett 13:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Grice wrote : the "paradox" 

message: That would be interesting... פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any video (I mean movie) or recording of him? 

message: Philosophical razor includes:
Has sources, and should probably be covered here at least briefly, since the other article is sending people here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grice's razor
Talk:One Little Independent Records

message: "who rose from the ashes of punk record company Crass."
It was Spider Leg records that Derek Birkett was running NOT crass.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.67.236.234 (talk) 08:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: When is an article considered not to be a stub anymore?
Paulo Oliveira 10:33, 6 May 2005 (CET)
: This is definitely a stub, 6 lines of which 2 are quoted from the site. A lot of featured artists, but that doesn't add much content. warpozio 19:47, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That didn't answer my question... :O) Paulo Oliveira 14:25, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub?

message: It was the success of Björk who established One Little Indian as one of the top independent UK record labels.
As opposed to The Shamen, who had a number one single and who sold truckloads of copies of Boss Drum? (I'm a fan of both, and I know who I'd rather have in bed with me - and it isn't Mr C!) It sounds a bit questionable, any source or stats to back it up? --kingboyk 22:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV?
Talk:16th Military Police Brigade (United States)

message: Why does a brigade of redcaps need to be airborne?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.92.225.164 (talk • 
:Because Army Regulations say that EVERY member of an Airborne unit MUST be Airborne Qualified.SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 16:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Airborne Qualification

message: contribs) 18:58, 6 May 2005.</small>
:Does this even deserve its own page?  It's barely even a stub Nik42 23:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It needs serious addition, but it's certainly worthy of an article. -- Necrothesp 19:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Question
Talk:Remembrance of the Dead

message: Should this and Remembrance Day be a seperate article? Shouldn't they be put on one page?
DodgeK 10:21, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Remembrance Day

message: should this information not be placed on a separate page? By mentioning it this prominently with about the same amount of space for this lone deranged person does great discredit to this national recurring event which is even more dishonorable given the nature of this event and great value that is given to it in the netherlands. .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.234.98 (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, on it's own it's not notable enough. No rather, the rest of the article should be expanded and made more comprehensive and complete. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it. Whilst the event happened on the day that section is entirely about the news event and is not about the day so doesn't really belong here. It's not notable on it's own so shouldn't have a separate page. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: 2010 incident

message: Could a user with knowledge of the subject/sources please explain in the article why this holiday is on May 4? Is it because it's the day before the anniversary of liberation, or does it commemorate some other event? Matt's talk 23:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It is indeed the first. Prinsgezinde (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why May 4?
Talk:Chef (programming language)

message: I wonder, has anyone actually tried to prepare this recipie? --198.164.135.31 11:59, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to give this comment late, but a mixed of raw fish, potato, mustard and lard would almost certainly give you awful food poisoning. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 22:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I think the zucchini and the potatoes need additional treatment.
I suggest to reserve liquifying (or frying for more transparency) for the first, and e.g. cutting them to the classical French fries form for the latter. — MFH: Talk 19:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  zucchini and the potatoes need additional treatment
Talk:Skin Yard

message: The lead of this article explicitly states that the band hasn't mainstream success.  So let's step back and ask basic questions.
#Will folks who do not own it have heard of a particular song or album and need a discussion of the importance and significance of it?
#Is any given album or song significant and notable enough to survive a VfD vote?
#Is any album influential enough that it is cited by other bands (without reference to the group) to a point where the function of that album in history needs to be discussed outside of the context of the band?
#Is there enough to say about any album that combining the material here gets the article over 32 Kb?  Is putting all information here something that makes the article unusable?
If there aren't clear "Yes"es to these questions, then there is no debate, at least for me:  simply from the point of logic and ease of use, all of the albums should be discussed in the context in which they will be sought and in which they illuminate the subject.  I.e. they should be all in the band's article (or not exist at all).
Is there any utility for a stub here and a stub for each record?  Is there anything gained that way?  Is there any loss that's prevented that way (assuming the redirects are valid)?  If not, it's just a matter of logic, as well as preserving name space, to put them all together.  Furthermore, if it comes down to asking for mediation, I'd have to say that right now it looks like those who want all the albums in one place are asking for discussion and reasoning on the talk page, while the person who does not is responding only with threats.  This is not good manners and bodes ill.  Geogre 20:42, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logic 

message: Moved from article space. Graywalls (talk) 10:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  unsourced contents
Talk:2000 Fijian coup d'état

message: The reason for my moves was the existence of the article 2006 Thai coup d'état. Since it's generally the standard practice to name articles with a year disambiguation (just a few examples that are current events: 2006 G20 summit, 2006 Southeast Asian haze, 2006 protests in Hungary, 2006 Georgian-Russian espionage controversy, 2006 Tonga riots, 2006 Oaxaca protests), I moved all coup and coup attempt articles to the common name format of "Year demonym coup(s) d'état (attempt(s))". Sorry for not explaining this beforehand, but I thought the move rather uncontroversial and straightforward. Do you oppose the move per se or just the standard I was trying to set with this? I'm sure we can come to an agreement. —Nightstallion (?) 22:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The same's the case for Fiji crisis of 2005-2006, confer 2005-2006 Thai political crisis. —Nightstallion (?) 22:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's done now. —Nightstallion (?) 17:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Is the See Also section required, given that the same titles exist in the navbox?  It seems to be redundant and should be removed. Is this thing working? (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently, the only template in the article is on worldwide coups since 1991. Although many of these articles are poorly sourced, i think they may deserve their own navbox, or maybe Fiji has one in general. (I am completely new to this subject)(mercurywoodrose)75.61.132.26 (talk) 05:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, i see. the navbox appeared as a "see also" section. very sloppy. ive now fixed that. the articles need more refs, though.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Is See Also section needed?
Talk:Electrical resistivities of the elements (data page)

message: This page is intended as an authoritative data collection with citation of sources, that may be cited as a central reference by other articles (such as for the chemical elements). Femto 12:33, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

message: I see two references that seem to give conflicting information --
one claims that "copper oxide also conducts electricity"; while the other says that "oxidized copper is almost as bad as oxidized steel as an RF conductor".
Is this the right page to list the actual conductivity value of copper oxide?
Or is there some other, more appropriate page?
--76.209.28.222 (talk) 05:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Copper oxide is a semiconductor. It was used in metal rectifiers. Biscuittin (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  copper oxide 

message: Resistivity of pure Si (rt) is 105 Ohm*cm = 103 Ohm*m. The value here is probably for doped Si. Beware, WEL and many other sources in chemical elements data references could be plain wrong. I have just started checking Si, and already Young modulus, sound speed and resistivity are off by a factor of >5. NIMSoffice (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Silicon

message: The unit used in the tables is nΩm. Does this mean nano ohms per metre? If so, it should be nΩm-1. Also, the cross-sectional area of the wire needs to be specified, otherwise the data is meaningless. Biscuittin (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake. I am confusing Electrical resistivity with electrical resistance. Biscuittin (talk) 20:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insufficient information 

message: I see [sic] several times in the data.  What does it mean?  That the phase or chemical name is misspelled? (It isn't)   Or does it mean the numeric data value is wrong..in which case, if the correct one is known, why not just fix the error?  --RProgrammer (talk) 14:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  [sic]?