lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:American Indian

message: The term Native American is actually accurate only for those who originated in America, such the native tribes of the Americas. The term Native American refers to those living in the United States and Canada. Those of Central and South America usually refer to themselves by tribe.
:The proper phrase to use in describing the indigenous inhabitants of North and South America is "American Indian" (as most indigenous peoples prefer this).
::Nope. OP had it correct. And remember to sign your posts. — LlywelynII 03:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: [To clarify: American Indian and Native American. — LlywelynII 03:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: Finding info on American Indian Ceramics is so hard. 69.142.35.181 20:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try jstor. — LlywelynII 03:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hard to Find
Talk:George Jung

message: "He is close to his family and has visited with his daughter."
: Can anyone give a reference for this?--Head of the Caligula Appreciation Society 23:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Family

message: It would indeed seem that this article is based off of the movie. However: It is possible that Blow was really a very accurate rendition of the life and times of George Jung. Either way: A big fat overhaul for this page is necessary.
:The movie is based on the book and shouldn't be considered as a source.  The movie fictionalizes many parts, so the book is the reliable source.  I've always tried to go back to the book as a source whenever possible.  There are several other good sources out there as well, trial transcripts, a PBS special, etc.  Though in most of these, it presents the story as George wants it presented.  There is obvious motive for him to spin it but those are the sources we have. SchmuckyTheCat
FAKE
Nothing in this page is right read the book "Killing Pablo" or you can probably check out the history channel for "The True Story of Killing Pablo" Mark Bowden did both of them and he is probably the most qualified author to recount the history and ties of George Jung  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.33.128.189 (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Based on Blow

message: "To the best of my knowledge, there are NO "mansions" on Nauset Beach, nor even any regular dwellings, since this is part of the government's Cape Cod National Seashore. I doubt that anyone, even with George's money, would be able to find, much less buy a "mansion" in that area! No doubt he had property elsewhere in eastern Mass. By the way, Weymouth isn't even ON Cape Cod! - STW-Feb-2007" by Special:Contributions/70.17.141.162 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jayvdb (talk • contribs) 01:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  in article comment added by 70.17.141.162 

message: Was george jung jewish or was his mother jewish?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.230.42.60 (talk) 23:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish? 

message: The article currently says that in 1994 he was arrested for carrying 660 pounds of marijuana.  However, that is the same exact number he was arrested for in Chicago in 1974 - 660 pounds.  Perhaps the facts are getting confused?  I thought he was arrested in 1994 because he got back into smuggling cocaine.  I could be wrong, but if so, perhaps a reference is in order?  At the very least, www.bostongeorge.com gives 640 pounds of marijuana to be how much he carried in Chicago in '74.  Seems awfully odd to be arrested again for a similar number. Guldenat (talk) 04:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factually Confused? 

message: This article appears to have been Copied & Pasted from Jung's official website  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.233.59 (talk) 07:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copied & Pasted 

message: Why is this page linked to the Wonderland Gang page? I do not see Jung mentioned anywhere as part of Wonderland situation.
Blakestern (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Wonderland Gang
Talk:Hash join

message: Isn't it the other way around? 
I believe I've read in a book that hash join goes like that:
...first, a single pass through the file with FEWER records... (partitioning phase)
...second, a single pass through the "other" file... (probing phase)Bold text
::Yeah, you are right.  I'll make some changes to this when I get some free time (hopefully later tonight). bDerrly 13:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed this problem (hjzla, March 18). Also added some more info.
The link at the bottom to the PDF file seems to be broken Mbadaire (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

text: So fix it. Abolen (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

message: I find this sentence confusing, and perhaps misleading: 
   Hash join is similar to nested loop join but faster than nested loop join and hash join is used for equi join.
It is confusing to say "X is like Y but not" with no real explanation. Furthermore, it is my understanding that a join being an equi-join is a necessary condition for using a Hash join, but never precludes the usage of a nested loop join. Therefore, I propose the sentence be reworded as:  
   Hash join is faster than the similar nested loop join, but can only be used for equi-joins.  
I feel this wording better explains the relation and conditions - similar, but faster and requires special conditions.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.68.43.138 (talk) 11:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording in first part
Talk:Rehearsal letter

message: I've tagged this new article as a stub because it's missing a couple of important points:
# When exactly did rehearsal letters come into general usage?
# Who originates rehearsal letters? The composer? The librarian of the premiering orchestra? The editor of the first publication?
# When were rehearsal numbers rather than letters first used?
I'm pretty sure research has already been done into these topics, and it's probably just a matter of looking it up. I will consult a couple of books on music notation. Dmetric 18:52, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On the first question: I don't know about general usage, but I think it was I who wrote in the Louis Spohr article that he invented rehearsal letters. My source, if I remember correctly, was the conducting article in Grove 6 (I don't really want to add that info to this article without double checking it, however). --Camembert 20:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's the edition they have at the library here. I'll take a look. Dmetric 19:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article TO DO 

message: This topic is so unbelievably trivial. Rehearsal letters mark places in the score. Is it really necessary to have an article on this? The only reason there might be any research on this is because PhD students are desperate for dissertation topics. I darn near stuck a VfD on this. Tell me you're not going to write an article on measure numbers or page numbers next. —Wahoofive (talk) 06:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Measure numbers are not as straightforward as you might think. What do you number a pickup measure? Do you give the first and second ending bars the same number or a different number? etc. Volunteer Sibelius Salesman 17:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're challenging me to write articles on measure number or page number, I must decline. I don't know enough to write much more than a dictionary definition. But just because my knowledge of the topic is limited doesn't mean there shouldn't be an article on the topic. Dmetric 22:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Given how much there is to say on this topic, with research to back it up, I would definitely vote "Keep" in a VFD. Besides, I wouldn't be so cynical of PhD students' dissertation topic choices if more of them ventured to research outside the standard music appreciation repertoire. Robert Happelberg 23:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing more frustrating than wanting the answers to something you don't know about, and not having the answers because somebody doesn't bother to provide the information. keep MMetro 22:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research into rehearsal letters?
Talk:2005 Quran desecration controversy/Archive 3

message: Here are my proposed requests. -- Toytoy 03:06, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
=== Remedial request: Revert the article's name ===
* I propose that we revert the articles name to "Desecration of the Qur'an at Guantánamo Bay" which has always been generally agreed. -- Toytoy 03:06, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
* Agree. BrandonYusufToropov 03:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remedial requests 

message: * I propose that we revert the articles name to "Desecration of the Qur'an at Guantánamo Bay" which has always been generally agreed. -- Toytoy 03:06, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
* Agree. BrandonYusufToropov 03:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remedial request: Revert the article's name 

message: * I propose that this article shall be focused on Qur'an desecration done by U.S. personnels. Reason: self-initiated desecration should not be counted. That's irrelevant. People commit suicide everyday. We only prosecute homicides. -- Toytoy 03:06, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
* Agree. BrandonYusufToropov 03:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remedial request: Contents 

message: First complaint against Ed Poor filed here -- please add your comments if you agree with what I've written. BrandonYusufToropov 02:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complaint 1: Administrators' noticeboard 

message: Second complaint against Ed Poor filed here -- please add your comments if you agree with what I've written. BrandonYusufToropov 02:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: BYT, I understand your concerns, but your "filings" seem to be going a bit berserk just now. The proper place to request arbitration is WP:RFAr (read the instructions!), not on the page about the arbcom. dab (ᛏ) 07:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complaint 2: Arbitration Committee 

message: * He is himself a member of the mediation committee. 
* In transferrring my complaint to the talk page, he "happened" to delete more than half of my complaint, and offered his personal critique against what remained.
* In short, he failed to recuse himself from this matter. Those who believe he should recuse himself from this discussion may perhaps wish to say so [here]. BrandonYusufToropov 20:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I have requested mediation in response to Ed Poor's disruption of this page for the period between approx May 19 and June 14
Talk:List of Republic of China Navy ships

message: In keeping with Wikipedia convention on warship articles, please be sure to include both the ship prefix (in this case ROCS) and the designation (i.e. FFG for guided missile frigates... etc). Example: ROCS Cheung Kung (FFG-1101). Thanks! --Loren 19:01, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Quick note on article titles

message: I think we need a separate page for Chi Yang Class FFG, or at least its own section under Knox FFG to detail the upgrades and changes in weapon systems.  Didn't the ROCN install SM-1 from Gearings on their Knox ships?  -- Adeptitus 22:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chi Yang Class FFG
File talk:Tamaulipas in Mexico.png

message: I think this image is GFDL, not PD. Although it's from :de:Bild:Tamaulipas in Mexiko.png, that's just a resize of :Image:Mexico template.png, which is marked GFDL. I think this image (:Image:Tamaulipas in Mexiko.png), as well as its siblings such as :Image:MexicoState.png (and also :de:Bild:Tamaulipas in Mexiko.png), should be marked GFDL. Any disagreements? —Caesura(t) 19:08, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is now under GFDL in the Commons (per User:Alex Spade). ... discospinster talk 19:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Micrococcus luteus

message: it should be stated clearly that this organism is a strict aerobe.
Am I correct by saying it is motile?
It's non-motile.
129.97.113.165 (talk) 03:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes 

message: Strain ATCC 9341, currently known as Micrococcus luteus, has been designated as a quality-control strain in a number of applications. It is also cited as the standard culture in several official methods and manuals, as well as the Code of Federal Regulations. Over the years, it has become apparent that ATCC 9341 does not resemble other M. luteus strains; however, its phenotypic characteristics alone were ambiguous. Recently, a polyphasic study was performed in which molecular data were combined with cytochemical properties and physiological characteristics. The results clearly indicate ATCC 9341 is a member of the genus Kocuria. Thus, it is proposed to reclassify ATCC 9341 as Kocuria rhizophila and to alert users worldwide of this name change.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.60.231 (talk) 12:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reclassification of ATCC 9341 from Micrococcus luteus to Kocuria rhizophila 

message: Could Flemming really discover the high G+C content in 1928 ? As far as I remember, the DNA structure was not even known.
Should we correct this sentence or do I miss something ?
Well, he probably could have learned the GC content by isolating the DNA, and chemically determining the relative amounts of G's and C's versus A's and T's. However, he would not have done this as it was not known that the bases base-paired.Gobbits (talk) 02:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Anachronism ?
Talk:D major

message: It would be a good idea to add the standard keyboard fingering for a two-octave D major scale.
Some quibbles with the K numbers shown in the article at the moment:
* K.73 is "Number 44"
* K.73n is "Number 45"
* K.141a is "Number 50"
* K.111a is a finale only
* agree with K.66c.   JackofOz 00:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Keyboard Fingering

message: This is only correct if it is in the Great octave, the typical D major is in the small octave. In Helmholtz, this would mean that if you used the dropped D tuning, then it'd be D-d, but the standard D major is d-d', and in Scientific, it would mean D2-D3 if you used the dropped D in the scale and D3-D4 if you used the standard D major. Refer to the article on D and check the chart to see what I mean. I think that should be noted somewhere in the article, but I'm just double checking to make sure everyone is okay with it. - J-Whitt (talk) 01:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The comment on dropped D tuning allowing two opens on the D major scale... 

message: Add these songs to the list if you can find sources for them:
Every Little Thing She Does Is Magic - The Police
I Can Dream About You - Dan Hartman
I'd Do Anything for Love (But I Won't Do That) - Meat Loaf
Iris - Goo Goo Dolls
Kung Fu Fighting - Carl Douglas
Tubthumping - Chumbawamba
24.158.8.234 (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources for Songs

message: Somebody took away every single modern song from all the key pages.  That's stupid.  I liked them being on there! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.51.192 (talk) 10:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern song wtf?

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :C-double-sharp major. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 31#C-double-sharp major until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "C-double-sharp major" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :E-double-flat major. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 31#E-double-flat major until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "E-double-flat major" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: I noticed that this article doesn't have an audio file example of D major attached anywhere.
If somebody could, please attach an example similar to the example seen in the article for C Major (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_major) (Notice how you can play the audio right from the article?)
I imagine it would be preferable if all the scale pages were consistent in terms of being able to hear each one
NumbMinded (talk) 07:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Audio Example
Talk:Hong Kong/Infobox

message: I am sorry I wanted to add a picture but messed up the formatting. Can someone fix it please? —This unsigned comment was added by Tempuser007 (talk • contribs) 19:06, March 12, 2006 (UTC).
:Pictures do not belong to the infobox. — Instantnood 17:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: Re:  - Simply telling the name of the title of the position is meaningless, especially for such title as Chief Executive. People with elementary understanding with political science may be able to tell a president is both the head of state and head of government when there's no prime minister (or premier), and when there're both, the president is the head of state whereas the prime minister is the head of government. But that's not the case for "Chief Executive". Few can tell what it is without being told. The CE of Hong Kong performs almost all the functions of head of state. She/he appoints/nominates judges of the judiciary, for instance. The only difference is that Hong Kong is not a sovereign state, and the CE has limited diplomatic responsibilities (but she/he does have some,  e.g.  , ). — Instantnood 17:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Image:Chang-eng-bunker-PD.gif
The point is moot as this template is going to be deleted, but the linking is inaccurate, pov, and misleading. It has been discussed to death at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries (refer to the archives) on how trying to categorize certain positions into clear cut prime minister-monarch heads of government and state is impossible for certain positions. In this case, it is less impossible: the Chief Executive is not head of state because Hong Kong is not a state.--Jiang 21:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't mind if the link is kept or not. Nevertheless the Chief Executive is performing those functions, and is constitutionally stated to be the head of the region as well as the head of the government (the executive branch). The point is not moot since the infobox still exists, although at a different place. I'm interested to read the discussion, and see which and how certain positions can't be clear-cut. Thanks. — Instantnood 20:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Head of the Region
Talk:Menallen Township, Fayette County, Pennsylvania

message: It has been proposed that Menallen Township Sewer Authority be merged into this article. The List of municipal authorities in Fayette County, Pennsylvania lists the sewer authority. I see no need for the merger, and oppose it. --DThomsen8 (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Menallen Township Sewer Authority 
Talk:List of American Dad! episodes

message: so many episodes call Season 7 as Season 8 with a note saying that there was a Wikipedia community consensus about it... but on Hulu and other "primary" fox/tbs-related sources it lists them as Season 7. Wouldn't a Wikipedia community consensus not matter if those sources call it Season 7? See the note in the info box in Virtual_In-Stanity for the note I'm referring to. Zacatero (talk) 19:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hulu isn't a reliable source for season number information. The season numbering issues is discussed at American Dad!#Season number discrepancies and it isn't merely some sort of whimsical community consensus. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of whether or not it the discussion and consensus were whimsical, my question was more about whether or not the decision was something that should have been decided by a consensus on Wikipedia? Additionally, what sources would be considered reliable for such a thing? If not something like a streaming service that would have gotten it's episode list directly from Fox and/or TBS in this case? Zacatero (talk) 02:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not clear to me from your comment whether you reviewed the discussion that I linked you to. In any event, as that discussion is located on the main page for the show, there's almost certainly community discussion of this matter at the main article's Talk page. If you can't locate it, I can see what I can find later. DonIago (talk) 02:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seasons 

message: Hulu and Fox and TBS, who own the show say that there are currently 18 seasons and i think that, that should also be here on Wikipedia. This season order mess up has caused a lots of misunderstandings, different sources and just annoyance overall. So, why not just have that order? It would just make everything more easy and besdies, it is the officall order, with the most sources claiming that the show has ran for 18 seasons, so i just don't get why it can't be switched here Leikstjórinn (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah and also on the American Dad Wiki, so i think that Wikipedia is the only site still using the old order, so why not just correct it. I don't get the arguement for not doing it Leikstjórinn (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you reviewed the above thread, and if so, how would you respond to the linked discussion of the season numbering issues? DonIago (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok i kinda get the point now after reading it, but still, that was in the past and everybody just changed their minds on this. I just think when TBS officall and Hulu both use the "correct order", it should be changed here.  Leikstjórinn (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really care one way or another how we handle it, but I don't think any change should occur without buy-in from multiple editors, as it would be a significant change. DonIago (talk) 03:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Hulu / iMDB season order is the official one, so why not just use it here?
Talk:Torgo

message: I've taken some of the plot info from this article and used it for the Mano entry. I wonder now if this article should be shaved down, retain the info about the character and the actor, but lose the stuff about the plot. It doesn't really belong here, does it? ---Jackel 19:32, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to agree. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:31, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But, the master would not approve... - Ferretgames 00:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "In the MMORPG World of Warcraft, there is a quest that involves killing a two-headed vulture named Torgos" – I find it more likely that the name of the vulture is derived from Torgos tracheliotus, the scientific name for Lappet-faced Vulture. --Anshelm '77 00:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misidentified as a homage?
Talk:Thomas Stith III

message: The 2007 Election section reads like a campaign press release.  It needs to be re-written.— Mustang_DVS (talk|contribs) 21:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV