lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Robot/Archive 4

message: I just marked this article "failed" as a good article candidate. There are no footnotes (not counting the single one that doesn't function) and very few references to printed works. The list of references seems to be quite random (Tesla, Man Out of Time??), rather than being a representative collection of the literature on the subject. The inline links to external URLs should be replaced with footnotes, and more of the citations should be to "hard" sources; i.e. books or peer-reviewed articles. The "History" section should come before the "Contemporary uses" section, and the History section should include a picture of something historic, rather than a picture of a contemporary  toy. The information in the "Robots and Human-Machine interfaces" section is too short and should be incorporated into some other section. And to name the most obvious flaw last, there's a dead picture link. This isn't an article that any editor or editors have devoted concerted attention to. KarlBunker 16:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Good articles|Good article]] candidacy 

message: It seems that both Devol and Engleberger are the "Father of Robotics". Did robotics have two dads? They must have been liberals. Rocketmagnet 00:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am slightly concerned that you may not be objective here, as you have a strong emotional connection to George Devol. In my opinion, there are several people who contributed significantly to robotics (as to almost any field) and it's tricky to pin down one as being the only one. Any chance of hearing from George and Joe?  Rocketmagnet 12:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Father of Robotics

message: I want to establish myself first, so here goes:
Hi, my user name is Sr13 (will likely be Singularity in the next couple of days because I am filling in a usurpation request, so don't get those confused) and I will be the MedCab mediator for this dispute. The discussion will take place on this page, below this message.
I only ask of one thing: During discussion, please do not be uncivil, as it may slow down the discussion and prevent an agreement between the two parties. I will mediate this dispute as best I can. Sr13 is almost  Singularity 21:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Sr13. Thanks for taking the time to mediate this dispute, which, as you can see, rages on up there.  So, how does this work?  Do we take it in turns, or do we all join in? Rocketmagnet 23:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone can join in the discussion. Unlike WP:MEDCOM and WP:ARBCOM, this is purely made to be a informal way of resolving dispute. Singularity 20:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I was just wondering how you mediate. Do the disputing parties just keep on arguing, and then you jump in at some point and say "easy guys"? How will it be resolved finally? Rocketmagnet 21:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: In the end, hopefully there will be some sort of compromise between the two parties. Singularity 21:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediator
Talk:Rafael Pascual

message: He is alive 37.210.150.1 (talk) 05:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  He is alive
Talk:Nanha

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.dawn.com/news/1140070. 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, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing 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.  Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Talk:Ragna Nikolasdatter

message: Who is Estrid Bjørnsdotter, and who was she married to? She's not in Heimskringla, and no king ruled from 1161 - 1176...--Barend 22:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I would like to redirect/renamne this article to Ragna Nikolasdotter , because the family suffic "-datter", meaning "daughter" is modern Danish and Norsk bokmål, not Norse language. Therefore, "-dotter" is a more correct term. The word "dotter" is also common to read in Scandinavia, because "dotter" is the way of spelling in Norwegian nynorsk, Swedish and "dóttir" in Icelandic and Norse language.-User:Arntor 16.11.2017, 17:15  —Preceding undated comment added 16:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  I wish to redirect this article
Talk:Iraqis in Iran

message: A number of the people listed as "Famous Iraqi Persians" do not fit this article as they do not meet the description of the term "Iraqis in Iran" as given in the first line of the article. Chemda Khalili is Israeli-born and lives in Queens, NY and has never lived in Iran. Dan Halutz is an Israel-born Israeli citizen. Abu Nuwas is exactly the opposite. He was born in Persia and migrated to Baghdad.
Merely being of mixed Iraqi-Persian ancestry does not merit inclusion in this article. Since these people are not Iraqis in Iran (or were not, in the case of Nuwas), they should be removed from this article.
68.114.154.100 (talk) 04:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: List of people
Talk:.cz

message: part of this topic is an advertisement: 
You can buy .cz domains from the offcial site; http://www.domains.cz
There is about 20 registrars in the Czech Republic. Please delete this ad. Thanks.
--85.207.186.71 12:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: It seems several open-source projects (and related stuff) uses .cz. Most notable is git and git hosting, but there is also ELinks and a long list at Google. I think this should be mentioned, if somebody can find some other notable sites that use .cz.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nokrev (talk • contribs) 01:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open-source Projects 
Talk:Publius Atilius Aebutianus

message: If you must add era tags, please keep the neutral "BCE" and "CE". I would prefer it in this form. Lupus Bellator (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Personal preference isn't a sufficient reason to change from one convention to the other, per WP:ERA.Cúchullain t/c 19:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose changing era style, or deleting era designation per Plotinus example at WP:ERA. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Era style
Talk:Rajesh Ramesh

message: I suggest that thus be moved to Rajesh Ramesh (Cricketer) as the current page has very few links and as most people searching for Rajesh Ramesh are looking for the Indian athlete - also evidenced in searching for the string "Rajesh Ramesh." I'll wait for a week for comments and then look at doing the move. Gurubrahma (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move?
Talk:Ralph George Hawtrey

message: Today's little article change is fuelled from David Glasners blog: https://uneasymoney.com/about/, which makes quite a difference:
"In 1927 he published The Gold Standard in Theory and Practice whose subject was self-explanatory. It went through several editions. In later editions (1931, I think) he provided a very nice summary of his basic understanding of how the botched attempt to restore the international gold standard led to the Great Depression."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.212.83.17 (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I generally agree with the change. I had elaborated on Hawtrey's views in the section, but forgot to update the lead. Thanks. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  View of the gold standard
Talk:List of Live Lounge cover versions

message: I have researched these tracks at length and some that someone at some point has decided in their wisdom to include in this list do not appear to have ever been performed as part of Radio One's Live Lounge. I am not prepared to detail them all here, but (not surprisingly) it includes many of those without dates. By "without dates", I do not mean to include those that appear on the Official albums, since I haven't felt the need to research these and therefore have not provided dates. Unless someone can verify these songs from a reliable type source (by which I mean to include fan based sites...since if they don't know who does?) I therefore propose that these be removed. What say you guys?  ♫ Яєdxx ♪♫♪♫♪Talk 14:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unverifiable Covers 

message: I remember them performing Dancing Choose. It may have been unsourced but it wasn't vandalism.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.36.25.25 (talk) 11:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  N-Dubz 

message: The song that they covered was actually S.O.S. by Rhianna, not the Jonas Brothers. 
75.71.228.165 (talk) 16:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last Shadow Puppets 

message: I've added the  template to warn readers that some of the content may not be inaccurate. This is because the article has been the victim of many attempts to introduce false information. Whilst attempts have been made to identify and revert any such attempts, I suspect there remains some false information. All performances should be able to be cited to a reliable source. The majority will be listed at http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/livelounge/archivebydate.shtml. That only has performances since late 2007 and so other reliable sources will need to be found for those before then. For the more recent performances, the relevant page (e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/livelounge/artist/100329_30secondstomars.shtml) should be used as the reference. Clearly there is a lot of work that needs doing here, both in terms of checking the accuracy and adding appropriate references. Adambro (talk) 09:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed 

message: I have an MP3 of the Sugababes performing I Bet You Look Good on the Dancefloor (originally by Arctic Monkeys). I was under the impression that this was recorded in the Live Lounge, but it's not listed here. Can anyone confirm this for me? – PeeJay 15:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sugababes cover of "I Bet You Look Good on the Dancefloor" 

message: This is a link to add more covers: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/livelounge/a-z/
A lot of good covers in there. Also tell us what acts are most covered
86.149.56.248 (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful link 

message: Both of the covers from 30 Second to Mars appear on the deluxe edition of their album "This is War."  Thought you'd like to know so you can annotate it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.27.163 (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  30 Seconds to Mars 

message: Hm? 109.239.73.250 (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about adding YouTube links?
Talk:Figure (horse)

message: This is the disscussion page for Figure, the first ever Morgan Horse. Please respect the talk page guidelines, and remember to sign your post by typing four tildes (James Potter Girl 08:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia discusion pages are not chat forums.  Please respect the talk page guidelines, and remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Montanabw(talk) 00:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

message: Looks like the National Museum of the Morgan Horse website at http://www.morganmuseum.org/ could realistically be used as source for a fair bit of this material - would this be considerered a 'reliable source'?  If so, someone with a better knowledge of adding references and citations than I have could probably do the citations and references bit quite easily. (ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 06:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: For this article, I'd say a lot of it will be, the main thing is to cite to the specific URL for the page where the info is, and use something of a jaundiced eye for claims that appear to be puffery.  There is sort of a 3-tiered informal standard: 1)  Any source that is reasonably accurate and isn't blatently horrible can get you to B-class because, hey, it's a source.  2)  to get to GA, you may want to back up any questionable sources with stuff that's more of a neutral, third party nature.  (See my last GA, Sheila Varian, where I had to double up some sources because a lot of the info came from her own ranch web site -- I KNOW some of the material was previously published in magazine articles, but they didn't cite the original sources), for FA, you have to thread the needle of total anal-retentiveness (which is why I will probably never try to take the Varian article to FA unless I stumble upon a 20 year old complete collection of old Arabian magazines, complete with index!).  Incidentally, if you want an example of an "OK quality and people won't jump on you" little short C-class article, see John Osborne Varian.  Montanabw(talk) 23:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations and References
Talk:Panamanian golden frog

message: The IUCN still lists Atelopus zeteki as "Critically Endangered". It is general practice to wait a number of years after a species has last been reliably reported in the wild before declaring it extinct. The reports that Atelopus zeteki is extinct in the wild seem to be based on the on the removal of all remaining specimens from one location. There is, of course, no guarantee that all individuals of the species were removed from that location, and no guarantee that other wild populations do not still exist. -- Donald Albury 21:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur, and have reverted to critically endangered.  --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, I'm not sure what the best scientific approach is for their recovery, however my thinking is if we say we're getting information from IUCN, we should go with their rating--critically endangered.  Previously we cited IUCN, but said extinct in the wild.  That is, to my mind, inaccurate. --TeaDrinker (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Conservation status

message: الموقع حلو جدااااااا بس انا ممكن اعرف ان ازاى انقرضت (ما اسباب انقراضها،وما العوامل التى ساعدت على انقراضعا...)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.235.78.92 (talk) 20:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Panamanian_golden_frog&action=edit&section=new 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Atelopus zeteki1.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on February 21, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-02-21. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Atelopus zeteki1.jpg]] to appear as POTD 

message: about 25 Golden Frogs exist in the world, that's not many is it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.214.252.40 (talk) 14:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population 

message: I really enjoy reading the part about how golden frog hear and orient sound direction and communicate through waving, but I think it will be better if the author can create a separate category as communication and put the predation part in another title called protective coloration and behavior. Besides the predation avoiding behavior talked in the entry, I think the author can also include what are the common predator of this kind of frog and how they coevolve. I also recommend the author include a category about diet because it is not mentioned in any parts of the entry. The diet is also related to its conservation such as how people are feeding and rearing them in captivity. The author can include another category focus on the microbiome living on the surface of the frog. The author talked about how significant number of bacteria living on its skin retained, but I think a lot more can be elaborated such as why this happen and what effect does the bacteria have on the frog. Yunfeng Ge (talk) 01:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review
Talk:Moselle wine

message: I've illustrated the article with a photo of a vineyard in German Mosel (which really isn't the main focus of this article), since I was unable to find any photos of vineyards in French or Luxembourgish Moselle. It wouldn't harm to have one photo from each country. Tomas e 12:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo(s)
Talk:Rand Holmes

message: There is a lot of stuff on him on the net, in connection with an exhibition. It seems there will be a book on him this spring "The Artist Himself, by Patrick Rosenkranz.
In Mark Estren's book "A History of Underground Comics"  (Google Books) Holmes is quoted as saying that he did not see an EC Comic until he was well grown up, which contradicts some sources. But the sources seem to like to differ a lot on him. To add to the article: Holmes also did publish in the Vancouver Sun, in Greatful Dead Comics, #2 and in Confessions of a Cereal Eater. Perhaps one should add a word about his Pacific Comics work. Holmes was very popular in Germany, U-Comics has printed and reprinted everything it seems (see also fr WP).--Radh (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book on Rand Holmes
Talk:Wisin vs. Yandel: Los Extraterrestres

message: Shouldn't the title of the page be Wisin & Yandel vs. Los Extraterrestres? It makes more sense. The boss 1904 (talk) 09:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct title
Talk:Hello & Goodbye

message: Okay, so I redid the page to make it look like the others of its kind. What do you think? It is a good start? I mean, I just wanted to gt the page on the right track from it's old page. I uploaded the image myself, but if anyone can find a less blurry one, that'll be great. Betsy Bubblegum 02:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Makeover

message: The Wikipedia:Notability (music) page indicates: "..if the musician... is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability..."  Since Jump5 has been together for seven years, has released three gold albums, two gold DVDs, and one platinum album, they are notable.  This is their last CD, it has received adequate coverage, and thus is notable.  If you have any questions, feel free to post on my talk page.  LetsGo67 (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Why this album is notable

message: I added several professional reviews.  The scope of coverage and the third-party assertion of rotation on Radio Disney should meet NALBUM.
However, I would like a second opinion on one review source.  CBN is obviously OK; it's a major Christian media outlet.  CCM Magazine is also OK, as a major Christian music publication.  Jesusfreakhideout.com, despite the name, has been around for 19 years, and is a Christian-focused music site.  Therefore, they seemed to me to be knowledgeable enough to assume RS. The same with Phantom Tollbooth, although their layout leaves much to be desired in the way of professional presentation.
The potential problem is with Common Sense Media.  The review is very succinct, but the group is a children's advocacy group, so if they reviewed the album they had to have a reason to review it.  It's not essential given the other reviews (which are better), but if it's removed as a review source, please be aware I'm sourcing an airplay claim to it as well with a refname tag, so please port the ref over. MSJapan (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Album reviews
Talk:Decadent Sound of Faye

message: Please see a new multi-move request has been setup over at Talk:No Regrets (Faye Wong album)#Requested multi-page move and all editors are highly encouraged to voice your thoughts over there. Tiggerjay (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multi-page move 
Talk:Please Myself

message: Please see a new multi-move request has been setup over at Talk:No Regrets (Faye Wong album)#Requested multi-page move and all editors are highly encouraged to voice your thoughts over there. Tiggerjay (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multi-page move 
Talk:One Person Playing Two Roles

message: Please see a new multi-move request has been setup over at Talk:No Regrets (Faye Wong album)#Requested multi-page move and all editors are highly encouraged to voice your thoughts over there. Tiggerjay (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multi-page move 
Talk:Lovers & Strangers

message: Please explain why this article is tagged with: 
* , with no link to a WikiProject; 
* , when most paragraphs already have a citation.  It would be more useful to add  against particular statements that are considered likely to be challenged. 
There were no clues in the edit summary which just said "two issues". – Fayenatic (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I added Discogs refs and removed the above tags. – Fayenatic (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags without explanation 

message: This discussion has been moved to Talk:No_Regrets_(Faye_Wong_album)#Requested_multi-page_move
:Only Love Strangers →  – This title (只爱陌生人) may have been faithfully translated to Only Love Strangers. However, moshengren (陌生人) is both plural and singular word for "stranger(s)". There are guidelines, like MOS:ALBUM and WP:PINYIN. But we must solely focus on usage of translated titles, Only Love Strangers and Lovers and/& Strangers, based on reliable sources, not on fandom and fansites. Very little sources for "Only Love Strangers" are found. The other title is not exactly accurate and not commonly used as well by news articles except BBC. For an effective discussion, we must avoid using post-2005 sources, as they must have used Wikipedia or a fansite as a translator. George Ho (talk) 07:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *The title in all its forms and translations misleads you as to what the song is actually about. The meaning in context is along the lines of: "I may not know much about you, but I love you." She isn't looking for a stranger to love. ("But we've been together for a long time!" "I'm sorry, I only love strangers.") An album title allows you to distinguish one album from another. Perhaps we should not expect more from it than that. Kauffner (talk) 06:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *Thanks. I accept now that the Japanese insert title "Lovers and Strangers" does at least convey something to identify the song & the album, so I withdraw my objection to it. For most readers of English Wikipedia, any English title would convey more than pinyin; unless people have studied Chinese, romanization is much harder to relate to than words of European languages, because of the unfamiliarity of the sounds and the lack of cognates. "Lovers and Strangers" would be better than "Zhi ai moshengren". If Wikipedia changes to use Chinese titles for most Faye Wong album articles, then most readers would not be able to distinguish them. I think MOS:ALBUM#Naming should be challenged. – Fayenatic London 16:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 
Talk:Random Thoughts (Faye Wong album)

message: Please see a new multi-move request has been setup over at Talk:No Regrets (Faye Wong album)#Requested multi-page move and all editors are highly encouraged to voice your thoughts over there. Tiggerjay (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multi-page move 