lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Pau, Pyrénées-Atlantiques

message: Anyone wanting to work up some of the history here should know there's a good French wikipedia article on pau. --Wetman 17:15, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old talk 

message: Discrepancy between Gottingen page and Pau page as to the year of twinning. Anybody know?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.190.150.169 (talk) 08:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gottingen 

message: This article had the rather obtrusive Expand French template at its lead. However a brief examination of the equivalent wp:fr article shows that it is more or less completely innocent of citations. So it is pretty useless as a source of translatable information for this or any other wp:en article. I'm not sure why the template was ever added in this case, but I've now removed it. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 12:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed the Expand French template 
Talk:George Shearing

message: The allusion by Jack Kerouac to having seen "Old God Shearing" in a 1949 appearance at New York's Birdland nightclub can be found on page 128 of the 1991 Penguin Books edition of On the Road.  JCNSmith 02:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shearing at Birdland 

message: Help, please!  My addition about "Shearing Voicing" has been marked "citation needed".  It is mentioned in the Wikipedia article on Red Garland, the "All About Jazz" article about Red Garland, and there is an image on Wikimedia illustrating the principle.  Can someone help me properly footnote it so I can get rid of the "citation needed"? - Mark Dixon 03:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help needed with footnoting 

message: Don't forget to cite his 1952 composition "Lullaby of Birdland" which has become a jazz standard. MBG 119.11.11.33 (talk) 08:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lullaby of Birdland 

message: Removed the section: He's worked with hundreds of people, unnecessary and incompleteCosprings (talk) 11:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed collaborations section
Talk:The Other Side

message: I cleaned up this disambiguation page and removed for nonnotability or unencyclopedicness:
*The Other Side (Britney Spears album) (2007) by Britney Spears Yet to be released and currently only a rumor
*The Other Side (Will Tang album) (2004) by Will Tang
* The Other Side (magazine), a magazine focused on Progressive Christianity, which ceased publication in 2004
– sgeureka t•c 21:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup
Talk:List of ministers under Margaret Thatcher

message: I think it would be better to have thin lines between each position. It's sometimes hard to tell at first glance which people held which post. Proteus (Talk) 18:49, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: The main table, headed "The Ministry", is not the entire ministry.  It is just the Cabinet.  There were many more members of her ministry than that.  We need to either add those details, or change the heading (and the title of the article) to "Cabinet".  --  Jack of Oz [your turn] 18:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Misleading title

message: I have merged Conservative Government 1979–1990 into this article, as it was simply a lister of ministers within the Thatcher government. That list belongs here, because, as noted above, the former table did not contain all ministers, and hence did not properly represent the “ministry”. This is now resolved.  RGloucester (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: MERGER
Talk:Magic hypercube

message: Hi
J. R. Hendricks is the greatest ever magic cube and magic
hypercube protagonist.  I put the stuff about him in the article, entirely appropriately, seeing as he was the first person ever to create a magic tesseract.   His mathematics papers on the subject are very good.
I've fixed the broken link.
One day I'll get round to creating a proper wiki entry for him.
In fact, maybe I'll do it tonight.
best wishes
Robinh 18:51, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  J.R. 

message: I added the link to a page I wrote for John Hendricks before his death. This page will be carried on my ISP account for the foreseeable future
Harvey Heinz 19:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: link to Hendricks page

message: I propose merging Magic tesseract into this article, Magic hypercube.  There's not much more in that article than particularization of the general definition.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from 4 

message: In addition to being technical (probably too technical for Wikipedia), there's no source given for the "[" notation.  I assume it's due to Hendricks, but we'd still need a reliable source that it's used.  For that matter, much of the constructions is probably also due to Hendricks, and we'd still need a reliable source.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notation and sources 

message: I suggest that Nasik magic hypercube be merged into this article (Magic hypercube).  It would add at most a paragraph, although would require rewriting the sentence on Perfect magic hypercubes here.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nasik 

message: The smallest possible nasik magic tesseract is of order 16; its magic constant is 524296. The first one was discovered by retired meteorologist John R. Hendricks from British Columbia in 1999 with the help of Cliff Pickover at the IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center in Yorktown Heights, New York after about ten hours of computing time on an IBM IntelliStation computer system.
I don't know if it should be here, in Nasik magic hypercube, or just too much information to be included anywhere, including back in magic tesseract.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphan text from [[magic tesseract]] 

message: There is not enough sourceable, encyclopedic content to support multiple articles on this topic -- they could equally well be covered in a single article JBL (talk) 15:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Klbrain (talk) 11:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Nasik magic hypercube]] into [[Magic hypercube]] 

message: There is not enough encyclopedic content here to support multiple articles, and most of both articles is duplicative and unencyclopedic rehashing of the same notations, operations, etc.  The hyperbeam article has a few sources at the bottom that conceivably could be used as the basis of a (single, shorter) encyclopedic article JBL (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Klbrain (talk) 11:33, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Magic hyperbeam]] into [[Magic hypercube]]
Talk:Deterrence

message: Deterrence is the primary theory of punishment in the United States legal system.
I don't understand the point about that sentence. Isn't deterrence the "primary theory" of all punis
The history of public punishment informs us that
the proposition that legal threats deter potential offenders and thereby limit crime is an ancient universal belief which is denied by five decades of published empirical evidence. (See e.g.  Sellin 1967.  Chircos and Waldo.1973. The Panel On Deterrence and Incapacitation. Blumstein et al. 1978. Scneider 1992.) The consistent and uniform body of evidence demonstrating a substantial reductive influence of deterrence upon crime does not present. There is not even a
consistent body of evidence showing a discernible reductive effect. The evidences tend to be marginal and are contradictory and confusing. Some appear to show that legal threats limit illegal behaviours, some that they have no effect and some that they are crime-causal. 
The standard general deterrence proposition is founded upon at least five major assumptions,all of them falsified,and it fully satisfies only one of twelve presented objective deterrence criteria. It was demonstrated in 1970 that the orthodox deterrence premise is evidentially denied, intellectually bankrupt and scientifically unsustainable. In short, standard deterrence is prehistoric superstition. rggregory@tiscali.co.uk
: Tu es sérieuse? <LePierrotAnguille 02:58, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Rubbish. Any research done on crime rates in relation to the severity of punishment, has only been performed in Western nations. I assure you, crime rates under repressive regimes are far lower than in the West. (Evidently Kim Jong Il knows his utilitarian calculus better than you.) Typos 03:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Talk:Soil science

message: After a review of WP:EL, the links list was pared back to sites hosted by national or multinational agencies and professional societies with soil science in their name. That's a good fallback position if on discussion the edit removing the External Links section needs to be reverted. — Paleorthid (talk)
Consider WP:LINKSTOAVOID. The professional soil science society, and agency soil resource information sites in the list don't match the comprehensive subject of soil science as addressed in the article. — Paleorthid (talk)
Wikipedia has a category for soil science organizations, a list of organizations isn't needed. External links are justified when the sites contain neutral and accurate material  into the article relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of soil science. The sites in the list are not justified by having great stuff that can't get into the article the usual way, with inline cites. — Paleorthid (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links section removed
Wikipedia talk:How-to (historical)/delete

message: Wikipedia:How-to was proposed for deletion. The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE.
Apologize if this isn't proper process, but this seems like a reasonable venue for the discussion anyway. In VfD discussions, it is often stated that "How-To" articles do not belong in Wikipedia; it's usually suggested that they be transwikied to Wikibooks. If this is true, then something needs to be done about Wikipedia:How-to. This page positively encourages the creation of how-to articles. The clear inference is that such articles are acceptable in Wikipedia. 
If such articles "do" belong in Wikipedia then let's vote to keep Wikipedia:How-to—and also stop citing "it's a how-to" as a reason to transWiki or delete. 
On the other hand, if these articles do not belong in Wikipedia, then this article's contents should be transwikied to Wikibooks and replaced with an explanation and a link. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:50, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:How-to does not seem to me to state a policy, but to implicitly assume a preexisting policy that encourages the creation of how-tos in the WIkipedia namespace and describes how to create them. My reason for choosing to discuss it in VfD is a) since I don't know where the relevant policy page is, I don't know any other place to discuss it, and b) a very frequent application of what people say is policy regarding how-to's is in VfD, and therefore this is where would expect to find knowledgeable and interested discussants. Should this be discussed in Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy? Or where? Dpbsmith (talk) 15:06, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

message: Jamesday reverted my rewrite to the page, noting that this was a change in policy without a vote.
I thought I had read somewhere that it had been explicitly decided that howtos are not for wikipedia but are for wikibooks, so my rewriting of this page was based on the idea that this page simply had never been updated to agree with that consensus. I'm going to double check on it -- it's late where I am, and I'm about to head to bed, but sometime tomorrow I'll see if I can find the policy I thought I read. If it's there, we should probably reapply my changes, if not, we should definitely keep the old version unless said conclusion is strongly implied, and then we'll have a discussion, and in either case I will apologise for my error in thinking it decided. --Improv 07:46, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Supplemental notes
Talk:First Rochester ministry

message: This should be the First Chits Ministry.  The Chits were Rochester, Godolphin, and Sunderland.  The next ministry could be the Second Chits ministry, although the distinction based solely on who was First Lord of the Treasury seems a bit dubious to me. john k 20:07, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: A couple of sources use the term 'Ministry of the Chits', which seems suitable to me, and seems to cover the period 1679–87. LookLook36 (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Stilt

message: Hi, I came to this page looking for an article about the walking, circus/parade kind of stilts. I believe there are two articles (Circus (performing_art), Shyguy) that link to this page that refer to those kind, not birds. Should this article be disambiguated or should another article be created, or both?
I don't particularly know anything about the walking kind of stilts, but I have a photograph that I was going to add to an article about them.
Rdikeman 20:11, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
:Nearly all the links are to the birds, so this should remain the main article. I would set up a page circus stilt or wooden stilt, relink Circus (performing_art) and  Shyguy to that, and put a note on this page and the new page giving a link to the alternative type of stilt. jimfbleak 17:34, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Hipólito Yrigoyen

message: The usual spelling is Yrigoyen, not Irigoyen; shouldn't the article name reflect that? Ejrrjs 20:24, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Does anyone know his personal history? Parents? Ileanadu (talk) 02:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal History 
Talk:BI-LO

message: ----
BI-LO was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made below the archived discussion rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP
Not notable. I believe a company needs to have either a) a multi-national presence, or b) be publicly traded, to have a Wikipedia article. This supermarket chain meets neither criteria. Despite the article's claim, it is NOT a world-wide chain--its stores are limited to 4 US states. Niteowlneils 20:29, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Reithy/Evidence

message: I have received an email from Reithy which I would, under normal circumstances, introduce as evidence in this case.  As an arbitrator, is it preferred that I not do this?  I feel as though refraining from doing so would unnecessarily free up users to attack arbitrators without consequence, but I know that doing so may raise the question of whether I am more party to this case than is prudent.  I had no contact with Reithy on this site whatsoever until this case was brought to us, and the email arrived without any direct contact between Reithy and myself.  I will do whatever you think wise. Jwrosenzweig 21:37, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Question for arbitrators
Talk:Cominform

message: then why did you go to edit the template and make it LONGER?
: Because I am going to redesign it for you by splitting into meaningful pieces, if you "communists" have no understanding how bad it is: long, ugly, incomplete, arbitrary, lacking meaningful integrity: the only thing that unites it is the word "communism".  Mikkalai 21:20, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: What is Tit? there is no relevant link on the disambiguation page
BritBoy 16:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some one probably misspelled Tito38.98.88.9 22:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tit 

message: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40392323?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents shows that the COMINFORM was formed much sooner, that the actual founding is unknown, and that the date cited in this article is the date when it was first FORMALLY mentioned. 
Qwartz2003 (talk) 11:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong founding date.
Talk:We Are the World

message: You left out Bruce Sprinsteen in the soloist list. 2600:1009:B14B:B799:DBB:2E52:5365:DCA9 (talk) 05:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit this. 

message: Bob Geldof talks about his involvement in USA for Africa in a BBC interview with Alan Yentob:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001dr0s/in-conversation-with-alan-yentob-series-1-2-sir-bob-geldof
42:38 timesetamp for Bob's initial phone call from Harry Belafonte and Michael Jackson about making an American version. 86.189.141.96 (talk) 14:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bob Geldof's involvement 

message: The statement that it has raised "more than $63 million ($156 million today)" has been marked as dubious. I don't know when that figure relates to, possibly early after its release, but the exective producer Ken Kragen states in this presumably more recent video that it has raised $80 million so far. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMUCNCgoD1Y&ab_channel=JasonWilliford Natahmad (talk) 06:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amount raised
Talk:The Convincer

message: *All song titles serve as redirects to this album, have their own pages, or have been placed at the appropriate disambiguation pages.--Hraefen Talk 20:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''<^>v!!This album is connected!!v<^>'''
Talk:Santa Maria Gloriosa dei Frari

message: Sorry for the error made removing Titian from the list of tombs: when I was translating this article for :it:Wikipedia, during a search I found that Canova's tomb was "based on the drawing of Canova himself for a unrealised tomb for Titian", and I thought that they were the same. Marcok 22:22, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: — Assignment last updated by Mpalomo1 (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Architectural History
Talk:The Spirit Room

message: "The album has sold 1,913,692 copies in America, and 3 million copies worldwide"... References please! How are we supposed to know if this is correct, when it was last updated, check the page hasn't been vandalised? I'm just asking that if anyone's going to write things like this down, please could there also be some accompanying evidence? Thanks:)Lowri (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: The genre Alternative pop (which redirects to Alternative rock) is incorrect and I'll delete it. I think it's also Teen pop. Pagen HD (talk) 11:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong genre
Talk:Imperial presidency

message: This article confused me, because a section called "Criticisms" should be criticisms of the theory of the Imperial Presidency, not the arguements of the theory itself.  So I changed the main section title to "Arguements" and added a section for the criticisms of the theory, called "Criticisms."
Erikmartin 20:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article seems to talk a lot about allegations about an Imperial Presidency.  A rewording of the many of the examples will probably make this a more factual entry. --Janus657 20:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Weaseling

message: This article starts with the phrase "Imperial Presidency" and then acknowledges the book and then goes back to the phrase.  This page should be split into one page for the phrase and another for the book.
Id447 16:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ambiguous Page

message: shouldn't this article be merged with the similar article of Imperialed presidency?--Levineps (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: merge?

message: This whole article is confusing, and dubious and frankly should be deleted as OR.  It sites only a few sources, some of which are likely editorial in nature and not really reliable sources and wanders around quite a bit.  I dont think Wikipedia really needs an article on what is, in essence, a political opinion.  Bonewah (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree but I notice this comment was made nine months ago and this article is still here. The whole definition for the term "Imperial Presidency" is completely subjective and seems to be merely intended as a pejorative term for what the modern US presidency has become. There is no way one can define such a term in objective terms, therefore it is a nonsense and this is a pointless article. I think the article on the book by Mr. Schlesinger, from which the term comes, is more than sufficient.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.1.238 (talk) 03:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious article

message: The section appears to be heavily weighting against a given administration, while not including past/historical, and more recent congressional oversights of the actions of the executive branch; therefore I have tagged the section as violating WP:POV. Furthermore, it appears that the initial list can be seen as a coatrack of criticisms towards a given administration.
Perhaps this section should be checked against WP:NEU, and editted accorindly.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Judicial Report
Talk:Hotel Paper

message: The genre Alternative rock is incorrect and I deleted it. I also think it's got Teen pop elements, especially since she's 19 when this was released. But I won't add that genre immediately. I'll wait and see if there's any response. Pagen HD (talk) 11:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong genre 
Talk:Killing of Victoria Snelgrove

message: to see the difference between content at redirect and this article see THIS DIFF
TONS... literally TONS of data is missing... nuff said  ALKIVAR™ 02:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes,but the intent of the VfD is that there is a consensus that that data OUGHT to be missing!Don't you know what "deletion" means?Do you understand the concepts of superfluity and excess?Of not being worth inclusion?--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 21:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Here's The Difference

message: Aside from a dearth of citations to justify such things as the talk-show host saying she "deserved what she got", quotes such as "...particularly in light of the negative attitude toward students held by the Boston Police..." demonstrate that this article needs some serious work. Diagonalfish (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The text that you quote was recently added by 24.26.44.74. I have reverted the addition. Flatscan (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Severe NPOV issues

message: In reading this article, I found that the circumstances of her death were very poorly explained. While the 2004 Red Sox-Yankees incident isn't the main focus of this article, it does need to be described in more detail in order to understand how and why she died.  At minimum, a couple sentences should be added to the initial section. Currently the only background information provided is the description of it as a "near-riot" under Investigation and Aftermath.  
Maybe it would be helpful to include direct links to the incident, rather than having them point to the general Red Sox and 2004 American League Championship Series pages.
--Netgarou (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introductoray Summary Needs More Details
Talk:A Day Without Rain

message: Unfortunately this article is missing a lot of crucial information about this album, but sadly I am not sure what versions have Isobella and what countries they were released on.  The article is missing it completely!  It is very frustrating as a fan who wants the version of this album that has that song which is very hard to find.  It comes from the single "May It Be" (track 2 of 3) and it appears no other Enya album has it.  More information is needed here.  Thanks for reading.  --Molokaicreeper (talk) 06:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Isobella

message: Changed the header "North American edition" to "U.S. edition". The Canadian edition was on another label, WEA, and contains the same 12 tracks as the UK version. I'm looking at the copy I bought the day it was released. 50.66.121.20 (talk) 04:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Track listing header
Talk:A Thought Crushed My Mind

message: isn't there some Metalcore in it?--Fatalyti 12:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled