lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Good Life (Kanye West song)

message: It's my understanding that the page was originally deleted for lack of sources. It is now sourced, with 2 independent articles from known sites stating that "Good Life" is the third single from Graduation.
Oozer3993 21:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is correct and the title is "Good Life". I understand MTV has it as "The Good Life" but the dominant Kanye West sources have it as "Good Life", those being his official "kanYeTalk" page and the news article on his latest honoring of Quincy Jones. For now, please the title as "Good Life" until a new, dominant source reveals otherwise. Such as official track listing from a store, kanYeTalk or even MTV if it as a preview or whatever. --Ayoleftyz 07:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bringing This Page Back 

message: Where is Drew Sidora in the video? Are you referring to the girl the appears throughout the video? That's the model known as Angel / Lola Luv. Chilblane 00:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drew Sidora 

message: Alright fellas, let's get this sorted out. Ayoleftyz, you say "Good Life" (along with Graduation) was also released on 9/11 on iTunes as a single. WIKI-GUY-16, you agree it was released on 9/11 as part of the album but not as a single. Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs#Infobox Single says to put "the earliest known date" it was released. If it was indeed released as a single on iTunes on 9/11, then I guess 9/11 is the right date. Spellcast 08:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, well this dude had to argue over and over now the page is administrator only and cannot be updated haha. Way to go there "WIKI-GUY-16". --Ayoleftyz 15:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually the date for the single is when the 12" comes out (and usually dates beyond the release of the album) but whatever. Douglasr007 22:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Release date

message: I've just unprotected this page. Can everyone make sure they're familliar with the three-revert rule if they're not already. – Steel 13:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  3RR 

message: How the fuck is this dirty south?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.21.196.248 (talk) 02:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dirty South Genre?
Talk:Swallow Reef

message: As evinced by the links, Layang Layang is overwhelmingly the most popular name for this place, although I suppose an argument could be made that Swallow Reef is more neutral. Move or stay put? Jpatokal 09:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Use the neutral name Swallow Reef. STSC (talk) 13:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layang Layang vs Swallow Reef 

message: It's a pity there is no image of the island - in this case, an image tells at least more than hundred words, a quick google image search reveals that the whole island is nothing except for an artificially built airport plus some buildings (including a hotel with 76 rooms and 10 suites, ref http://www.geo-dive.com/regions/far_east/malaysia/layang_layang.php).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.191.122.72 (talk) 13:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  More info 

message: Not surprisingly you may assume the Philippines also claims Swallow Reef if you haven't read Republic of the Philippines's Baseline Law (2009). 
Here's the unchallengeable evidence: Link. Go there and check Republic Act No. 9522. 
The Philippines officially keeps the definition of Kalayaan Island Group coined by Ferdinand Marcos's Decree No. 1596 (1978). There's no change. Philippines claims most of the Spratlys, not all of the archipelago. Spratly Island (proper), Swallow Reef, Royal Charlotte Reef, Ladd Reef, those banks near Vietnam, Louisa Reef near Malaysia,...are all out of Philippines' claim. 
Autumnyear (talk) 02:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  An explanation why Philippines doesn't claim Swallow Reef 

message: (Selectively copied from: User talk:Lisan1233#Swallow Reef)
Where did you find the 35 ha area figure? (i.e. A useful reference would be ..., "useful".) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Some info on Chinese bbs, no official source.-Lisan1233 (talk) 01:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

text: http://www.godeyes.cn/html/2012/04/16/google_earth_13067.html - Lisan1233 (talk) 13:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Which bit of the article mentions the area of Swallow Reef? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "陆地面积大约0.35平方公里（原有沙洲面积不足0.1平方公里）"-"land covers 0.35 km2 (natural cay less than 0.1 km2)"-Lisan1233 (talk) 02:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of reclaimed land area?
Talk:Weizhou Island

message: What's with the temperature? Mentioning it like that makes no sense. Is this an average?
The first external link does not work any more (resource gone or moved). The second link has no english as far as I can see.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.83.20.97 (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Chris Charsley

message: The WBA Who's Who has him as Christopher Charles Charsley, as opposed to Charles Christopher Charsley. Are there any other sources that could be used to verify which is correct? --Jameboy (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: IFFHS has Charles Christopher, as does  cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Full Name
Template talk:Mughal Empire

message: I am really not happy with this template. Especially the 'Enemies' part. If anyone can include a better word, that would be nice. Also, I thnk including their tombs and wives and courtiers would be useful.--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll second that - really the banner header needs to be much thinner - if we're going to have pictures we can put them in the template proper. --Joopercoopers 13:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 19:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm worried about the flag. Can I get a citation for its origin, please? Hornplease 00:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This section requires re-framing. The events, the adversaries, the achievements are not complete. I just removed Event section thinking that it was about Jahangir. However, later I found that it is about the whole Mughal empire. In case it is framed Mughal Empire, then in case of Events, we have to cover a large section every category. For examples, the events as presently shown are exclusive to Babur tenure. But there is Buxar entry which is not associated with Babur but with Later Mughals. However, there are many events which are not mentioned. It requires lot of work to include enough entries for each category doing justice to all the emperors included in the first category. --Sumir 10:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-Frame this section 

message: The image showing The Mughal Empire during the reign of Aurangzeb c. 1700 is highly incorrect.
This image shows the incorrect information because there is large portion of the Maratha Empire is missing in it.
The image should be removed immediately.
The image should be replaced with correction and showing the maratha empire in the Deccan Area(Currently a part of Maharashtra, Gujrat, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh).
24prasannaballal (talk) 11:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added or altered. - Arjayay (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2014 

message: I just noticed that the family tree linked in this template only goes up to Babur. I also note that there is already a template for a genealogy of the Mughal emperors. Should I just swap the links? Or would it be better for me to merge the two trees together? Alivardi (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong family tree linked 

message: change Awadh to Nawabs of Awadh 49.207.5.33 (talk) 07:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Madeline (part of me) 14:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2022
Talk:Zhoushan Island

message: Is Taiwan part of China?
I corrected the previous edit: another user had deleted Taiwan from the list of islands bigger than Zhoushan, so the sentence read "fourth largest island after Hainan and Chongming". Obviously it didn't work. We could correct and write "third largest", but in this case we should correct all other pages that mention the list, f.e. Chongming Island. The status of Taiwan is obviously a thorny issue and we should be careful where we tread; but since as of today neither the PRC nor the ROC dispute that Taiwan is a part of China (which China is the issue) I decided to stick with the status quo.
Fred 163.1.232.113 (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Alataw Pass

message: What is the elevation? Peter Horn User talk 01:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elevation 

message: Dzungarian Gate and its aliases currently redirect here.  According to Google Scholar, there are 299 hits for Dzungarian Gate and 154 hits fpr Alataw Pass.  According to Google Books there are 1810 hits for Dzungarian Gate and 99 hits for Alataw Pass.  But rather than rename this article Dzungarian Gate I think it makes sense to focus this article on the Chinese rail station and upgrade the redirect Dzungarian Gate to an article on the geographic feature.  I intend to make the appropriate changes to the Dzungarian Gate redirect shortly.μηδείς (talk) 22:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Dzungarian Gate

message: While Alataw Pass literally appears to be the Chinese name of the valley which is the Dzungarian Gate, the town bearing that name is known in Chinese as Alashankou.  Since the term Alataw Pass is ambiguous, I intend to move the content of this article within a day or two to the name Alashankou and to make Alataw Pass a disambiguation page referring to the two (Dzungaraina Gate and Alashankou) and the train station as well.μηδείς (talk) 02:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Move article and make Alataw Pass a disambiguation page
Talk:Khunjerab Pass

message: The term "Pakistani-Occupied Kashmir" (POK) is used mostly in India or by Indians. A more common term is "Pakistani-administered Kashmir". In Pakistan, the area is known as Azad (free) Kashmir. I favor the use of the neutral term "Pakistan-administered Kashmir", and am changing it accordingly.  AmeriDesi 16:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral name for region

message: In the phrase "(formerly the known as the Northern Areas)" the first occurence of the word "the" should be removed. 24.44.14.186 (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  minor edit suggestion 

message: Add Khunjerab Railway to the See Also section. --92.8.35.103 (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Added it to the "Railway" section as a main article reference.  Favonian (talk) 12:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Request 
Talk:Torugart Pass

message: Wasnt this the pass used by the ancient North Silk Road? Mary*wu (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it was used during the Han dynasty. The area was occupied by a country called 捐毒 (Juandu). You can read an excerpt about them here. Unfortunately the name has also been used by later bureaucrats to refer to India, so it is hard to Google for. --Voidvector (talk) 13:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Ancient route
Talk:100 Cambridge Street

message: This building is now known as "100 Cambridge Street".  See   Should a new article be created with the name, 100 Cambridge Street, Boston, and this article turned into a redirect to the new one?  NewtonCourt (talk) 07:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved it. Magic♪piano 19:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am skeptical. When I was there on Wednesday, I went in the upper entrance (from the park behind the McCormack Office Building) and it still says LEVERETT SALTONSTALL BUILDING in huge letters over the doors. I didn't look at how the Cambridge Street entrance is marked, but I don't know that any of this is an appropriate reason to take the name off the article, even if that's what the building's management calls it. How do we define the name of a building? I don't think it is exclusively what the building's management company says it is, but also if the building branding is not changed, it is hard to say the name is gone. jhawkinson (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the Saltonstall name should be still be used in the article, given the continuing signage.  But I'm not sure about the best solution.  The Cambridge Street entrance has just the number 100 on it.  I think the most accurate explanation of the current situation is that the Saltonstall Building is the office tower component of the 100 Cambridge Street mixed-use complex, which also includes residential and retail space.  Having two separate articles seems like overkill, but I don't think it's accurate to describe the whole complex in an article called Saltonstall Building.  So I'd be inclined to leave the article with the name 100 Cambridge Street, but rewrite it to make it clear that the Saltonstall name still applies to the original building.  I'd also leave the redirect from Saltonstall Building to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewtonCourt (talk • contribs) 19:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  New name
Talk:Chardi kala

message: The result was merge Chardikala into this article (Caṛdī kalā). -- Robnpov (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent, thank you for your input. I also now realise that the article Chardikala was actually created from this one! I have now merged the articles and replaced Chardikala with a redirect. Robnpov (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger of Chardi kala and Chardikala 

message: Hi, I just want to know why the non-standard spelling is used, esp. since for most people the easier one will do. If no satisfactory answer is given, we may revert to "chardi kala" and be happy & positive about it. elpincha (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for non-standard spelling? 

message: this is an appallingly-written article. its rhetorical mumbojumbo that doesn't explain the concept whatsoever. it needs complete rewriting. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  atrocious 

message: Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh
"They also believe that God is without enemies (nirvair)"
This is wrong, it should read that God is without enmity (animosity) We do not see God as vengeful or bitter. As it is written now is very wrong and makes no sense, can somebody please correct it, as I don't know how. Thank you. 2601:803:C600:790:A058:C0D6:917B:FE43 (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  It should read "without enmity (animosity)
Talk:KBBY-FM

message: Does anyone know of a reason to change the service area to Santa Barbara or the genre to "Adult and Teens Contemporary"? I reverted anonymous edits to that effect and I couldn't find any supporting source for them. Єlєvє<SMALL>N</SMALL> єvє<SMALL>N</SMALL>||иэvэ иэvэl3 04:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attempted changes
Talk:23rd Seanad

message: Can we wait until there is an official announcement before adding names to the list of Taoiseach's nominees? Plenty of speculation of who will get a seat but no confirmation yet! The party makeup of the nominees is not in dispute, the PDs and the Greens will get 2 seats each as has been agreed in the programme for government. Maurice Hayes is also likely to be re-appointed (as an independent) which leaves 6 seats for Fianna Fáil. Snappy56 22:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to say "told you so", but... it turns out I and whoever added the other two names did tell you so.  Sorry, just had to pull that one. —Nightstallion 17:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nominated by the Taoiseach

message: Just thought I'd mention that Alan Kelly is a Labour senator, not Fianna Fail.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.128.155 (talk) 09:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected. Feel free to do it yourself in future! Snappy56 (talk) 02:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Alan Kelly
Talk:Mongolian Plateau

message: "between 87°40′-122°15′N and 37°46′-53°08′E"      Has anyone else noticed 122 degrees North?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.160.138 (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "between 87°40′-122°15′N and 37°46′-53°08′E"      Has anyone else noticed 122 degrees North? 

message: where is this Mongolian plateau actually located?actually there is an group activity for me tomorrow so I'm actually student so I need an answer very quickly so please help me Rgkadv110777 (talk) 15:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mongolian
Talk:Rixiang Reef

message: Some of you currently appear to be engaged in an edit war regarding the name of the reef that some call Gageo Reef‎ and others call Rixiang Reef. Please use the articles' talk pages to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war
Talk:Walt Disney Treasures: Wave Seven

message: Supposedly only 11 are still existing.  Listing all the Disney ones as being on the disk would be incorrect. Casey14 22:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The numbers have improved since this comment was made, of the 27 Disney produced Oswald only about 6 are still unaccounted for in any form, at this time of writing in 2022 although further 8 have missing sequences. If anyone is interested they should track down Dave Bossert who oversees these recovery effort of the missing shorts DoctorHver (talk) 10:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Oswald the Rabbit Shorts?
Talk:Jiangnan

message: I found a sentence: The Wu and Yue were ancestors of modern Vietnamese and spoke completely different languages from Chinese.  
Is that really true that they were ancestors of modern Vietnamese, how could they immigrate so far until vietnam today.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.48.219.27 (talk) 15:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: doubt

message: Article is written with a Chinese bias.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.160.24 (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: not specifying why (with no specifics) is tantamount to not giving a reason for the tag at all. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 22:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: neutrality
Talk:Laugh-O-Gram Studio

message: Isn't the picture outdated? I think renovations started in 2007 and may be complete now.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.172.59 (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race

message: * This is a B-classed article that is section tagged (since January 2011 and August 2014) for reference problems. This fails #1 of the assessment criteria and is at risk of being demoted. I didn't look but if it was promoted after the date of the tags it should not have been.  Otr500 (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article issues  

message: This Wikipedia Page reads like a high school essay paper written by a C student who had better things to do than write an essay paper on the Iditarod. If it wasn't 1:50 a.m. I would start a more official complaint as it deserves much better... 2600:1700:8A90:ECF0:9489:316D:F2EE:4A97 (talk) 07:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Wikipedia Page is a disaster.
Category talk:Mountain Meadows Massacre

message: Does this really need a category to itself?  I would think that these articles should be a under "Conflicts between the US Government and the Mormons" or Interaction between the US Goverment and the Latter-day Saints" or some such thing.  Then things like the Mormon Battalion, the Utah War, the legal acts controlling polygamy, the internment of Mormon Polygamists, etc... could be included as well.  Opinions?  WBardwin 22:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A broader category would be fine, but I think there are enough articles relating to this one event to justify a subcategory of such a broader category. A number of individuals or groups of individuals that have articles are notable only because of this event. –SESmith 22:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A Category?
Talk:Aryadeva

message: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Aryadeva+%E6%8F%90%E5%A9%86&hl=zh-CN&btnG=%E6%90%9C%E7%B4%A2&lr=
--222.67.212.250 (talk) 09:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese translation of the name is based on the following... 

message: I removed a line in the article that said, "One of his best-known students is Aśvaghoṣa", because it was uncited and it sounds dubious. I realise that the dates of these people are very unclear, but Āryadeva was most likely active in the 3rd century and Aśvaghoṣa was probably before that. A few google results make it appear that the connection between the two might be a Tibetan tradition. In any event, we should clarify who exactly says Aśvaghoṣa was Āryadeva's student.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 08:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aśvaghoṣa
Talk:Zuppa inglese

message: This article needs attetion in the following areas:
* Citations from reliable sources, properly formatted
* Address red wikilinks.
* Copy edit for structure,
* Wikify
--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 06:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WPFood assessment 

message: Haven't had this but from the description it sounds like basically a variation on a normal Trifle, what if anything distinguishes it from actually just being a foreign type of Trifle?Number36 22:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trifle by any other name?
Talk:Inca agriculture

message: Ok, so the Inca practiced agriculture, but this article says nothing about what they grew. Any information on that? Hires an editor (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crops Grown? 

message: There is some hidden text in here that seems to have come from the Spanish language version of this page. This looks like important stuff. It would be really great if someone would translate it into English (avoiding any copyright issues) and make it visible (by removing the comment markers). A quick check against the Spanish version of this page would be worthwhile as well. AWhiteC (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish speaker wanted! 

message: I'll be working on this article over the the next few weeks as a project for my Anthropology course. Here are some of the sources I intend to use so far:
*Peru under the Incas
*An imperfect balance : landscape transformations in the Precolumbian Americas 
*AGRICULTURAL CEREMONIES OF THE CENTRAL ANDES DURING FOUR HUNDRED YEARS OF SPANISH CONTACT
*LAND-USE REGIONS IN THE CENTRAL AND NORTHERN PORTIONS OF THE INCA EMPIRE
*How the Potato Changed the World's History
Hopefully this project ends up being successful! EngetsuGray (talk) 01:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources for Canada Education Program

message: The newly added sections are extensive and readable and the article contains a fair amount of links to outside sources.
The article is well referenced and successfully adheres to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. This article is very extensive without being overbearing. The additions are over-all very relevant to the topic of Incan agriculture. Awgenvirosoc (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review

message: We plan on adding new paragraphs to Crops, Farming Tools, Food Security, and Land Use. We will also add new section on Animal Husbandry. We will talk about the crops that the Inca grew and the locations and elevations where they were grown. We will talk about the tools and landscaping practices that the Inca used to cultivate crops and the land around them. A paragraph will be added about the way Inca stored and preserved food. A section and paragraph will be added about the Animal Husbandry practices of the Inca, and what animals were domesticated and their purposes and uses.  Hpdhw2 (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Animal Husbandry, Farming Practices, and Food Security