lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:John D. Rockefeller III

message: I feel the article on "William Whitney Rockefeller" should be deleted, as there seems to be no evidence such a person exists. Jlittlet 20:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge?

message: I've moved this page from John D. Rockefeller 3rd to John D. Rockefeller III. If his son is John D. IV & grandson is John D. V, the page move is obvious. GoodDay 17:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Movement

message: "was a philanthropist and third-generation member of the prominent Rockefeller family. He was the eldest son of the philanthropists John D. Rockefeller Jr."
This feels like a pretty biased way to open an article about the heir to a fortune built on literal wars against labor. It would be equally accurate to describe him as the eldest son of Robber Baron and brutal labor suppressor John D. Maybe there's a way to split the difference and not describe them as though their wealth came out of a vacuum to flow outward in benevolence?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:8580:54A0:A477:AE04:D6C1:D230 (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Philanthropists the really most important trait to Rockefeller Jr?
Category talk:Fictional artificial intelligences

message: Just a thought here, are we differentiating between A.I.s that exist only inside computers (i.e. SHODAN), and A.I.s that have their own bodies (i.e. Data)? Seems to me that characters like Data have categories like "Fictional Robots" and so on, so if we add them here because they are by definition artificial intelligences, technically we should be adding every machine character in fiction. Master Deusoma 02:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Machine characters without intelligence would be fictional robots but not AIs. Maybe these are not the most useful categories, but there's a difference. Diego Moya (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hmmm 

message: Technically, an AI is the "mind" behind any robot (as long as it is not remote-controlled and has some level of adaptability), so is it useful to have the 3 catagories:
Fictional artificial intelligences,
Fictional computers,
Fictional robots
I propose we make Fictional artificial intelligences a super category of the other two
Thomas Kist 18:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. Limiting "Fictional artificial intelligences" to purely software-based characters is confusing. Besides, there are many entries in this category that don't qualify to that limited description. Diego Moya (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictional Computer, Robot or AI
Talk:Joint Task Force – Global Network Operations

message: WTF OVER OPSEC--143.81.248.53 (talk) 11:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The information is public record. Sephiroth storm (talk) 07:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: OPSEC

message: Where is JTF-GNO located? Sephiroth storm (talk) 07:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Location?
Talk:Gallup poll

message: "Gallup polls incorrectly predicted that Thomas Dewey, instead of Harry S. Truman, would win the 1948 Presidential election." - in the article about George Gallup.
"Gallup has been taking polls on US Presidential elections since it began. Every time, its results have predicted the correct winner." - in this article.
I have no sources on this. Does anyone know? Introgressive 20:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect information? 

message: We should note in the article that the reason for the incorrect predictions of the Gallup Poll in the 1948 election were as a result of poor polling practice - in this case the pollsters failed to continue polling voters until the end of the ballot, they stopped too early. I'll come back and add this in when I've had time to dig up a source. U R A GR8 M8 05:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was taught in school that the primary faulty polling practice was that it was conducted by telephone, and as a result it oversampled people who could afford telephones.  Urban legend?  I dunno.   Tomertalk 03:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truman VS Dewey 

message: There needs to be a section about how the polling is conducted (or at least a note in the intro). It's still conducted mostly by phone, right?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.167.64 (talk) 04:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polling by Phone
Talk:T. M. A. Pai

message: WHERE IS THIS PLACE???? Sure this gye did lots of good stuff. but where?? What country, at least? Nekohakase 20:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Manipal, this is located in India. I've npov'ed and wikified the article and added some categories. I haven't been able to find the man's first name though. Aecis Appleknocker Flophouse 21:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: TA Pai Management institute is not established by Dr TMA Pai. It was formed in 1984 well after his death.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.255.20 (talk) 09:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  TAPAI Management Institute 

message: There is a serious mix up in this article. T. A. Pai and T. M. A Pai are NOT one and the same!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Divakar.pai (talk • contribs) 19:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mix Up 
Talk:Joint Information Operations Center

message: The JIOC name has been changed to the Joint Information Operations Warfare Center (JIOWC).  I have created a new page for it and moved all of the information from this page to that.  I made a note in the history section that in 2006 the name was changed.  Recommend this article be deleted.  USSTRATCOM PAO 17:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Change
Talk:Peace One Day

message: From the page currently:
"1. It was to be held on a fixed date every year, 21 September, instead of the third Tuesday of September." [...]
"The resolution was to be announced during a ceremony at the UN building in New York, at the last old-style Day of Peace, when Kofi Annan would ring a peace bell. But ironically, just before that was to take place, terrorist attacks struck the US, including the WTC in New York. Because it was feared that the UN building might also be a target (which it wasn't) the ceremony was postponed."
This tells me that up to and including 2001, Peace One Day was on the third Tuesday of September; and from 2002 onward, it was fixed at the 21st of September.  However, the terrorist attacks referred to, as we all know, occurred on September 11, which was a Tuesday in 2001, but was the second Tuesday of the month (the 18th was the third and would presumably have been the Day of Peace in 2001).  What's the discrepancy?
I also came to this article and International Day of Peace because I heard somewhere that Sept. 11, 2001 was declared a "World Day of Peace" (before the attacks, of course) and wanted to confirm if that was true.  But, there's discrepancies between these two articles as well, the International Day of Peace article says that Gilley made the proposal on September 7, 2001, which was not a Tuesday, not the day of the attacks, and not the last "old-style" Peace One Day.  Because those two articles talk about similar things, I'm going to see how I can suggest they be merged.  --Canuckguy 20:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Recommend moving this to his own page, is his date of birth relevant to the Peace One Day movement? Katstevens (talk) 10:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Jeremy Gilley biographical information

message: "At the Womad music festival in 1998 Jeremy Gilley conceived the idea of one day when all countries vowed not to wage war; a worldwide ceasefire, a non-violence day."
Makes it sound like no-one had the idea already, and makes it sound like the UN didn't already have an international day to call for peace.
The day and marking of it was already established and had been since 1981-2. September was already established. What contribution did Peace One Day actually make? This article makes it sound like Jeremy had a unique vision, and made something new happen. 
I think the article needs clarification, and needs to move away from being a press release by Peace One Day.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.52.62 (talk) 12:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification needed - and more facts

message: A "Live Global Digital Experience"   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.156 (talk) 09:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A media-friendly event
Talk:Eighteenth Air Force

message: There are a lot of problems with this article. It attributes activities of Far East Air Forces units assigned to 315th Air Division to Eighteenth Air Force when, in fact, Eighteenth Air Force was a Tactical Air Command unit and was not directly involved in operations in the Far East. The article needs to be re-written and focused on the subject at hand. 206.54.199.8 (talk) 05:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

message: I propose to merge 618th Air Operations Center into this article. That one is sparsely sourced, full of excessive detail and buzzwords, and what useful content there is could easily be accommodated here. Reyk YO! 18:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal
Talk:Boeing E-6 Mercury

message: You've been warned about edit warring. Please discuss before you end up blocked. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Correcting inaccurate information is not edit warring. Binskernet is the one reverting all edits without discussion and with no regard for accuracy even when provided with authoritative source material. Khieatt (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Then what you should do is argue here why the sources you prefer are better and wait for that discussion to conclude. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I have done that. Binsternet is the one reverting edits without discussion. Perhaps he could use some of your editing advice. Khieatt (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

text: * Such a discussion probably should be on this talk page since it directly relevant to this article and so others will see it and can contribute. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

text: *:I agree. I didn't realize the discussion between Binksternet and I was not on the public talk page. I have added a post requesting input. Thanks. Khieatt (talk) 15:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  edit war 

message: Wikipedians,
The specification data for the E-6B Mercury is outdated and needs to be updated. The current reference is from 2019 and has been updated as of 2023: https://www.navy.mil/Resources/Fact-Files/Display-FactFiles/Article/2162873/e-6b-mercury-airborne-command-post/. I have attempted to make the edits, but they have been repeatedly reverted by editor Binksternet. The specifications have changed since the aircraft is undergoing significant upgrades/modifications, which began in 2022. Sources below:
https://www.northropgrumman.com/what-we-do/air/sustainment-and-modernization/e-6b-mercury
https://www.dvidshub.net/news/422245/first-e-6b-inducted-under-new-maintenance-contract
https://www.navair.navy.mil/news/Navy-accepts-upgraded-E-6B-Mercury-delivering-enhanced-capabilities-fleet/Tue-06062023-0639
We could use some assistance settling this matter. Thank you! Khieatt (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated specifications
Talk:Xenotime

message: I made a proper etymology paragraph out of the last part of the lead and included a reference (see above). I polished up a few sentences and fixed some grammar. Rt3368 (talk) 04:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology, polish 

message: I changed the date of discovery from 1832 (same year as the publication of volume 2 of Beudant's Traité élémentaire de minéralogie) to 1824. Is 1832 accepted even though Berzelius's submission to Annales de Chimie et de Physique (1825) 2 (29) p 337 admitted his error and Lost Elements notes that Berzelius made his erroneous claim of a new "earth" in 1815? He must have been examining the mineral then. By 1824, Berzelius published Undersökning af några Mineralier ("Examination of some minerals") identifying the mineral as yttrium phosphate. Which date is correct?
 Rt3368 (talk) 04:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of discovery 

message: The name "xenotime" is wrong. The correct name is xenotime-(Y) (or xenotime-(Yb)). See, e.g., https://www.mindat.org/min-4333.html. "Xenotime" is a GROUP name. Eudialytos (talk) 13:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong name

message: Missing.  --Itu (talk) 06:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hackergroup
Talk:Abd al-Ghani al-Maqdisi

message: Oh, man! I dont want this to ever go away, so since its non-copyrighted, im pasting it here. --Striver 21:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Link
Talk:CNA Financial

message: This a very important page, and however put that comment please come forward.
bobsmith319. I have worked ver hard on this article please don't remove it.
:Hi, bobsmith319. Please sign discussion posts using --~~~~ or the signature button on the edit window. Now that the article has been nominated for AFD the process must proceed by policy, and only an administrator can close an AFD. Removing tags such as the importance or cleanup tags is also frowned on unless you substantially address the reason they were added in the first place; they're there for the article, not to slam you. This is a fine start to an article (see WP:STUB), but needs much more to be complete. Tags are ways to alert other editors to come in and improve the article, so you don't have to do all the work yourself. It works better this way, trust me. --Dhartung | Talk 06:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "Our focus has been on professionalism, integrity, and commitment to our policyholders and distributors. Today, CNA looks forward to building on its track record of success."
Most or all of this entry was written by a CNA employee from a first person perspective, and should be deleted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.162.138 (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propaganda Written by CNA -- SHOULD BE DELETED 

message: As per this.  Tag should stay til someone independent of the company reviews this article carefully and confirms they have done so here. Jytdog (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: i checked it.  tagged a couple things needing citations, otherwise seems OK. Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: COI tag

message: This article reads like a press release. Nothing wrong with press releases, but Wikipedia is not a press agent. The grammar is also off throughout the article's effective bullet-point list of CNA achievements. I'm not sure if it's NPOV, encyclopedic tone, or what, but this article is not suitable for Wikipedia as-is. Thenarius (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-promotion
Talk:Short, sharp shock

message: Heh. Found this the other day. Could be B-class - It's a small subject. Adam Cuerden talk 21:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say it's just a start, even though I put in some more stuff.  -- Ssilvers 23:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The letter itself doesn't mention 'Short, sharp shock' at all - only the editorial header mentions that.  The letter desciribes the kind of treatment known as a short, sharp shock without actually using the term.  As the only mention fo the term has been inserted by an editor at the archives, I wonder how relevant it is to include it here.  It doesn't really illuminate the term, which is the subject of the article. 86.133.241.140 (talk) 09:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It shows that the term is used to describe legal punishment.  Even though the term is not used in the 1820 letter, the reference shows that when *discussing* the letter, the editor decided to use the term.  So, it shows that the term is in use to describe the subject.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Just noting that the article has been expanded to explain all this and to state that the use of the phase in The Mikado "popularised" the term. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Letter in external link

message: It's unclear to me why Sullivan would be credited with this phrase in any case since it was Gilbert who was the lyricist. David (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Sullivan is not credited separately from Gilbert.  Sullivan wrote the music for the song in which those lyrics appeared.  If Sullivan had not composed The Mikado, those words very likely would not have become noteworthy, since no phrases from Gilbert's non-Sullivan works have become famous.  So, you can't totally separate the lyrics from the music.  Similarly, "Hail, Hail the Gang's All Here" is sung to the tune of a song from The Pirates of Penzance, but you wouldn't say that it's a Sullivan song, you'd say that it's to the tune of "Come Friends Who Plough the Sea" from Pirates by G&S. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Attribution
Talk:The Heights School (Maryland)

message: RE: "The current version of this article reads like an advertisement" - 
No, it does not read like an advertisement.  The information provided on this page is purely factual information regarding The Heights School curriculum and their mission statement.  Other than that I added the only recent ranking I could find regarding this institution.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Master20817 (talk • contribs) 
:Master20817: Most of what you added was copied word for word off the school website, which is a promotional site for the institution, aka advertisement.  I’ve reverted your recent edits to avoid tagging with copyright infringement.  You can use the information on the site to formulate additions but please don’t copy outright.  It’s against wikipedia policy.  Thanks. --Roccyraccoon 20:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: How about a reference for the Washington Post ranking? If one is not provided by Monday, January 22nd, I will have no choice but to delete said sentence. Mmace91 22:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Washington Post Ranking
Talk:Great American Desert

message: Pike expedition claims that Zebulon Pike labelled the area the Great American Desert, whilst this article suggests that it was a surveyor (Stephen Harriman Long) who did so.
Given that Pike died in 1813, and the surveyor's map is dated at 1823 (and Long's expedition wasn't started until 1819), does anyone have a source on Pike's usage, which would obviously pre-date Long's usage. 156.34.38.60 21:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Pike expedition page says Pike didn't label the area, but rather called it the Great American Desert "in his memoirs." According to D.W. Meinig it was Stephen Long who "inscribed GREAT AMERICAN DESERT" boldly across his map.  I'm not entirely sure who came up with the term, but I think it was Long who "put it on the map", so to speak; although Pike's memoirs may have spread the use of the term, I'm not sure.  On the other hand, the term "desert" was widely used in colonial and early US times, with a meaning less of "sandy wastes" and more of "deserted and treeless".  I am skeptical that the term "Great American Desert" "discouraged settlement for decades", as the Pike expedition page states.  I'd think that for a long time there were simply better places to settle, like Oregon, California, etc.  It is true that in most of the High Plains agriculture without irrigation is impractical-- which is another early sense of the word "desert".  Anyway, I'll try to make some small edits if I can, and look into the term's origin a bit more; maybe even find an old map to use here. Pfly 18:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin of the term
Talk:Carmelite Sisters for the Aged and Infirm

message: :The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
* Support. Speedy move. Please contact an admin. There is no need to vote on this!--Asteriontalk 10:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey
Talk:White lady (cocktail)

message: This article is primarily a recipe (which is against policy), and it either needs to be improved or integrated into some other location (like List of cocktails). It sounds like there could be an article just waiting to be developed, but it needs to be done very soon. --Willscrlt 03:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to improve the article. It is no longer a recipe and include relevant information about history and substances of content e.g. important information for allergic persons that it include sometimes eggwhite --Lasttan 12:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job! It looks a whole lot better now. It's still a stub, but it's a really nice improvement. Thanks! :-) --Willscrlt 09:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion
Talk:Károly Grósz

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: Johanna Granville, "Imre Nagy aka 'Volodya' – A Dent in the Martyr's Halo?", Cold War International History Project Bulletin, Spring, 1995. 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.  Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed