lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Amos Marsh

message: This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement.  Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that 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. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible copyright problem
Talk:Lord Marshal

message: I fail to understand your objection. What should the main article on the chairman of the Nobility be called?
I undestand that Lord Marshal is the general article, as we also have Lantmarskalk and redirects Marshal of Dvoryanstvo and Lantmarskalks of the Finnish House of Nobility. If you have an objection on the name of the article, we should consider a rename to a more general term. -- Petri Krohn 00:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Marshal of Nobility
Talk:Al Javery

message: Would anyone be able to resize the picture so it works better with the article? Thanks --BryanGross1 (talk) 23:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Resize
Talk:Aming

message: * The name of this Duo is "Aming" (not "Amin"). Please change this article's title. --60.36.5.59 01:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Grogol Petamburan

message: Several malls are listed as "important places" without any citation to a reliable source. Mall Sepong is too far west to be in Grogol Petamburan, as it is west of the Cisadane River; it also appears to be west of Tangerang, so it may not even be in West Jakarta at all. Mall Ciputra at least has a correct location in Grogol Petamburan, if not importance. I have removed mention of Mall Sepong from the article for the above reason. --Bejnar (talk) 20:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malls
Talk:Te Kauwhata

message: This page seems to contain contradictory information about population - apparently 1296 in 2006, then approximately 13,000 (an order of magnitude higher). Currently neither of these assertions have been referenced, but I've added the "citation needed" template to each of them. Is the second assertion a typo, or are there really supposed to be ~11,700 people in the surrounding areas, yet only ~1,300 in the town?
-- Cipscis (talk) 05:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've updated the population to 2013 figures, and dropped the unsourced figure for "surrounding areas". Te Kauwhata has its own area unit in the census, and we don't usually give the surrounding area figures in this situation. However, the area unit which surrounds Te Kauwhata had a 2013 population of 2,538, and the next larger unit would be the Waikato District with 63,000, so I don't know where the figure of 11,700 came from.-gadfium 22:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Population

message: Te Kauwhata does not mean “empty storehouse”.  Anyone with knowledge of Māori, which I have, can see that.  Adjectives in Māori are placed after the word they describe, not before.  Secondly “kau” is not even an adjective!  A kauwhata is a frame or rack where items were hung - a term often applied to a rack where fish and eel fillets were hung to dry.  A Kauwhata may also be used to display the prosperity of a village.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.100.57 (talk • contribs) 
:
:The reference given has some authority, as it is produced by the Ministry of Culture and Heritage. However, I have also thought some of the translations in it seem dubious. 'Kauwhata' has several meanings according to maoridictionary.co.nz, and what is really needed is a suitable source giving the origins of the name for this particular place.-gadfium 22:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Meaning of name
Talk:Rabbit calicivirus

message: I have proposed a merge with Rabbit hemorrhagic disease virus. Both articles cover the same organism, but differ greatly in content: RHDV contains more biochemical information, while RCV contains more information about applications and the associated disease. However, I'm not sure which term is more prominent, so I'm not sure which page should remain. If there are no serious objections within a week or two, I'll effect the merger. Feel free to leave comments here. Cheers. – Liveste 06:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I definitely agree with the merger.  I had no idea that the article Rabbit hemorrhagic disease virus existed.  As far as the name, the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses uses Rabbit haemorrhagic disease virus, but I'm also OK with the American spelling.  A second alternative is to just name the article Rabbit hemorrhagic disease and have it be about the disease and the virus. My personal opinion is that this is the preferred approach when the virus is named after the disease, as it is in this case.  However, if we were going with Rabbit calicivirus, I would keep that name and not call it Rabbit calicivirus disease.  So I say merge it into a single article called Rabbit hemorrhagic disease.  --Joelmills 15:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merger
Talk:Black-bag cryptanalysis

message: Oppose -- we are talking about different concepts here. A black bag operation is a burglary by officials, black bag cryptanalysis refers to the use of physical break-ins to compromise computer data security. Possibly this SHOULD be merged with "rubber hose cryptanalysis" into an article or section about non-mathematical means to compromise cypher systems.
Eleland 01:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger
Talk:Lawa River (Indonesia)

message: I don't know that I'm going to get any responses here, but to keep in line with the rest of the pages titled Lawa River (i.e. Lawa River (Africa); Lawa River (South America), I'm proposing the title of this be changed to Lawa River (Borneo), sticking with geographic regions rather than political states. It's more specific, too, with Indonesia being so widely spread. Night w (talk) 13:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: to be in line with the others, wouldn't it be lawa river (Asia)? Aren't Africa and south America more widely spread than Indonesia? Anyway, precedence is not important.  --Merbabu (talk) 14:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The subject is a geographical entity, rather than political. The other two are named along with the landmass they run across. Are there any reasons for keeping it as Indonesia rather than Borneo? A river in Indonesia could be on any of a dozen landmasses...whereas Borneo is quite specific. Night w (talk) 04:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Move page
Talk:Water polo ball

message: "Ball weight is 400-450 grams (14-16 ounces) and inflated to approximately 34-48 kPa (5-7 PSI)[1]  of pressure." Which is the real source of this assertion? A source is provided but it says nothing.
It seems the ball is quite harder as 90/97 kPa as many other authoritative sources says.
http://www.fina.org/H2O/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=310:wp-3-the-ball&catid=85:water-polo-rules&Itemid=184
WP 3.3 For games played by men, the circumference of the ball shall be not less than 0.68 metres and not more than 0.71 metres, and its pressure shall be 90-97 kPa (kilo Pascal's)(13-14 pounds per square inch atmospheric).
http://www.canoeicf.com/dms/icf/documents/Disciplines/CAP/Rules/Rules-CAP-2009/Rules%20for%20Canoe%20Polo%202009.pdf
38.3. For games played by Men, Under-21 Men and Master Men, the circumference of the ball shall not beless than sixty-eight (68) and not more than seventy-one (71) centimetres, and its pressure shall be 90-97 kPa (kilo pascals).
http://usawaterpolo.org/Libraries/General%20Document/USAWP_FINA_09_13.sflb
WP 3.3 For games played by men, the circumference of the ball shall be not less than 0.68 meters and not more than 0.71 meters, and its pressure shall be 90-97 kPa (kilo Pascals) (13-14 pounds per square inch atmospheric).
Armando82 (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the corrections. I changed this in the article. Ryanjo (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pressure 
Talk:List of passenger airlines

message: PRC does not currently govern the island 150.116.244.110 (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is Taiwan grouped under PRC?
Talk:Odysseus' Scar

message: If this chapter deserves an article of its own, rather than just being merged with the collection it's from, Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature, please justify by improving the references.
The Dancing Badger (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge?

message: I am concerned that this entry does not accurately convey what Auerbach is saying in his essay either because the contributor did not write clearly enough in several instances or because he misunderstood Auerbach's thesis.
For example: The Wikipedia entry reads
 
"He [Auerbach] also points out how, with the careful insertion of a flashback "retarding element" (term coined by Goethe and Schiller) into the middle of the story, Homer creates a relaxing excursion to defer suspense."
Auerbach writes
"Goethe and Schiller, who, though not referring to this particular episode, exchanged letters in April 1797 on the subject of “the retarding element” in the Homeric poems in general, put it in direct opposition to the element of suspense—the latter word is not used, but is clearly implied when the “retarding” procedure is opposed, as something proper to epic, to tragic procedure (letters of April 19, 21, and 22). The “retarding element,” the “going back and forth” by means of episodes, seems to me, too, in the Homeric poems, to be opposed to any tensional and suspensive striving toward a goal."
I don't know what the Wikipedia entry means by "a relaxing excursion to defer suspense." Auerbach is clear that the purpose of "the retarding element" is NOT suspense.
There are other examples like this. I would like to rewrite the entry. What do you think?
Medusa123 02:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarity
Talk:Model Congress

message: I have added info about this program because the page for this program was made into a redirect to the model congress page by the administator who ruled delete. Since there is a redirect to this page from Youth Legislative Assembly there should be some mention of the program otherwise people may get confused when researching YLA. Acidskater 02:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Youth Legislative Assembly

message: I remember once stumbling upon a sort of online role-play model congress. It seemed quite large and a rather complex simulation of the work in the Senate and the House of Representatives. 
Unfortunately, I've forgotten the name of this site and even the last half-hour of using google and wikipedia's own search was without success.
Not only that I think this could be included in this article, I would also like to return to go to the article of this online model congress and maybe take part in it. I really hope someone knows, what I mean. --DocBrown (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Online Model Congress

message: Given that user Eeeeeeeeeee1235629 reverted my deletion of the "Online" section without any comment (see here), I am creating this section to reach consensus on whether inclusion of this content is justified or not. The external links and inclusion of Discord chat rooms violates basic WP principles, such as WP:ELNO. There is no substantive, independent, third-party discussion or mention of "ModelUSGov" in any mainstream media (aside from one article that mentions it in passing, without consideration to its "Model Congress" elements). Given its obvious non-notability -- and the history of users with only 1 edit or so adding content that borders on self-promotional for these communities -- I think it should be removed. The other communities mentioned have even less independent coverage. I will revert the reversion - until consensus is reached, I think we should not include any of this content.  Indicia of solemnity (talk) 22:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: My 'being new' is irrelevant. I only bring it up to highlight that most of the content's inclusion is likely self-promotional, since only relatively inactive users bring its inclusion. The other content in this article is clearly significant and covered in independent, third-party sources -- take, for example, the various sources in the first paragraph of the High School section. Wikipedia is not for including any community that may or may not be related to any subject matter - it is an encyclopedia. Inclusion of content should not be trivial (as in, just random facts), self-promotional, or irrelevant. Also, the section being included in the article for a long time does not mean anything - many non-notable and irrelevant things have been included on low-traffic pages like these. None of what you have said is a real argument in favor of its inclusion, other than (pretty much) WP:ILIKEIT. (Also, I am not sure whether the other user is engaging in good faith, since they are reverting my edits without any comment or discussion here.) Indicia of solemnity (talk) 23:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Online Congress
Talk:Muslim Educational Association of Southern India

message: Does anyone have a logo for MEASI? Wiki San Roze talk 02:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This article needs MEASI logo

message: Does anyone have any idea of details of current trust members of MEASI? ώЇЌĩ Ѕαи Яоzε talk 02:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Details of current trust members
Talk:Auralia

message: Auralia is the correct title for the article per the government websites I have cited in the new references section. The originally cited ABC documentary is a transcript and contains other errors, for example a misspelling of "amendments" as "ammendments". Graham87 13:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title

message: The first sentence in the third paragraph is incoherent, claiming, in effect, that the "colony... was dragging his feet..." :
"The push to secession was prompted by perceptions that the Western Australian colony under Sir John Forrest was parochial and self-serving and was dragging his feet towards federating the state with the emerging Commonwealth."
Someone familiar with the history should correct the sentence.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnOFL (talk • contribs) 17:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Say what?
Talk:Modern understanding of Greek mythology

message: Having read this article, while it is a good first draft I don't feel it merits a "B" grade. There are just too many problems with it.
First, there is no clear initial overview of the subject. Modern analysis of Greek mythology takes several different approaches; this article only mentions two, "comparative mythology" & "psychoanalytic approaches". There are more, which include philology, explanation as "nature-myths", how myths represent social institutions, thru structuralism, & post-structuralism, & as symbolic, or mythopoetic, expositions. While the last is something of a fringe theory, it has a notable following -- consider the popularity of Robert Graves' mythology writings.
Second, the opening paragraph reads oddly, as if it is still being thought out. The opening sentence begins "The genesis of modern understanding of Greek mythology is regarded by some scholars as a double reaction at the end of the 18th century", yet only one "reaction" is given. And the statement "the Christian reinterpretation of myth as a 'lie' or fable" raises the question that if Greek mythology was deprecated, why did it remain so important in the vocabulary of the culture of Western Civilization?
And when presenting those two approaches, nothing is said about what they reveal about Greek mythology. We are just given lists of the people who advocate these approaches -- incomplete lists. And at the end appears a section "Origin theories", without explaining how this information fits into the organization of the article. Are these theories the result of comparative mythology, or psychoanalytic approaches, or one of the approaches that were not mentioned? -- llywrch (talk) 06:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rating
Talk:Marion L. Brittain

message: From the archives:  and . —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other images

message: The only issue that needs to be addressed is that the lead is too short. T Rex | talk 12:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to make changes or further recommendations as needed. MaxVeers 14:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yay, I passed it because now with the lead it passes all the points on the good article criteria. T Rex | talk 14:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you have any other suggestions? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 18:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA on hold

message: :This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Marion L. Brittain/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
===GA Sweeps: Pass===
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several corrections throughout the article and added a new source, infobox, and persondata. I found one dead link that should either be repaired (I tried using the Internet Archive but was unsuccessful) or replaced with a new source. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Reassessment

message: As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several corrections throughout the article and added a new source, infobox, and persondata. I found one dead link that should either be repaired (I tried using the Internet Archive but was unsuccessful) or replaced with a new source. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps: Pass
Talk:Matthew O'Neill (filmmaker)

message: I want to put a stub tag in here but can't figure out which one -  seems to be just used for the actual films, while  and  seem to be used primarily for people working on big-production films. Ideas? Dbalpert 03:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, looking at the other documentary filmmaker pages, some use , but  looks most promising so I am going to go with that. If someone reads this and knows better please fix it. Dbalpert 03:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Unrighteous dominion

message: This article needs to be renamed from Unrighteous Dominion to Unrighteous dominion to better meet Wikipedia guidelines. -- 71.35.46.20 03:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. (You can do it using the "move" tab at the top of the page.) -SESmith 07:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article needs to be renamed

message: Please do not tag an article with valid content into an orphan category. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 08:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Editor explained.  Tag replaced.  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 08:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Orphan Spam removed

message: To remove orphan status, a good link would be to Mormonism and authority. COGDEN 20:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to/from Mormonism and authority
Talk:Grand Canyon University

message: As the article correctly states, the U.S. Department of Education classifies GCU as a "for-profit" institution (due to ongoing contracts and ties with its former for-profit owner, Grand Canyon Education). However, in 2018, GCU successfully transitioned to a non-profit status with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the Arizona State Board for Private Postsecondary Education, and its regional accreditor, the Higher Learning Commission (HLC). I think the Refn template should be added after "for profit" to clarify GCU's unique non-profit/for-profit status situation. Wikipedialuva (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: There was an RfC a few years ago - you can read it in the archives of this Talk page (linked at the top of the page). If you think that consensus may have changed since then, you're welcome to open another RfC. ElKevbo (talk) 04:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  For-profit status and adding ref note 

message: Added copy edit tag to Rankings, recognition, statistics, and accreditation. Review needed for tone and importance. Could consolidate the second paragraph (statistics) with the paragraph on entrance requirements in Academics.
Description and History are well written. Campuses, Academics, Athletics and Rankings all need attention.
Expecting the page to get seasonal traffic since the men's basketball team made the NCAA tournament. Hireddense (talk) 01:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Substantial re-write needed for some sections 

message: Bowling alley no longer exists on campus. It was removed from thunderground to make room for other activities. Funsize3003 (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bowling alley needs removed from recreational activities