lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Orin Starn

message: note: prodded after AfD. not the way to go a/c the policies. Anyway, distinguished professors at major universities are notable academics by any reasonable standardDGG 01:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: There seems to be some disagreement about whether information regarding Dr. Starn's writings on the lacrosse case should be included here.  I understand Dr. Starn's statements above and believe that the page currently reflects that - the portion of the page about the case quotes from his op-eds or from articles where he is quoted without any extra commentary on those quotes.  
From a prior editor - I agree that more content should be on this page than mainly about the lacosse writings, and I invite editors to add it.  I do not think addition by subtraction is the answer, however...  DukeEGR93 18:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Content
Talk:Proximity effect

message: On March 6, 2007, User:Mikkalai marked this page for cleanup per MoS:DAB and suggested that this page should be split into several sections because there are many completely different topics and this was bad for categorization. I have put up  now to make his suggestion more obvious. I'm not familiar with the topic of Proximity effect; I cleanup a lot of dab pages though, and I would turn this page into the main disambiguation page and link from here to all the other (new) articles. So the question is before I go ahead: is there anyone who disagrees? (I'd wait some time before I begin.) – sgeureka t•c 13:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all for proceeding with the split.  One question: should we agree on the titles of the individual articles before the split, or can that be easily fixed later?Ccrrccrr 23:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moving the pages to the right name wouldn't be a big problem, although it's probably right to think about that beforehand. I would have used Proximity effect (atomic physics), Proximity effect (electromagnetism), Proximity effect (electron beam lithography), Proximity effect (audio) and Proximity effect (superconductivity) as recommended in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision). If someone can shorten the precision names even more, please state them here. – sgeureka t•c 06:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The suggested names look good to me.Ccrrccrr 20:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the meantime, another experienced dab editor has removed the  tag. According to Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Summary_or_multi-stub_pages, that's right for now, but I think that all sections of this page are long enough (except the "In atomic physics" section obviously) and can be split off into their own articles, especially if these topics are really independant. I'll be away for a week and see whether someone else has formed a strong opinion one way or another. Then I'd go ahead with splitting. – sgeureka t•c 21:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I almost forgot about this page. I've decided to leave it alone for now. If someone still wants to split it, use the names/links above. If someone doesn't want a split for whatever reason, delete the  template on the main page. – sgeureka t•c 20:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks great!  Thanks very much for doing the job--and for the other recent contributions to the electromagnetism one.  I've tried to update a few of references to proximity effect in other articles as well.  Ccrrccrr 13:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split suggestion 

message: I just reverted an edit that made it say:
:Proximity effect may refer to the area:
:*Atomic physics
:*Audio
etc.
That's confusing.  Proximity effect is not synonym for "atomic physics". Also, the link is not a link to the atomic physics article.  The old way is yucky, and I appreciate the effort to fix that, but it avoids these problems.  I'd welcome a solution to the yuckiness, but not one that doesn't make sense.
Ccrrccrr (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to list
Talk:Laurence of Canterbury

message: Was the church he was buried in really named after Augustine of Hippo, not Augustine of Canterbury?  The latter seems more likely. --Saforrest 19:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  older entries 

message: Good job..Modernist (talk) 00:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks. Now for Paulinus of York and Gregorian mission and the Featured Topic will be done! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Congratulations
Talk:Nationalist Congress Party

message: The disambiguation from National Congress Party really easy to get this mixed up with the Indian National Congress party, what's the best way to fix that?
--71.38.171.129 01:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian National Congress mixup 

message: That’s weird...should it be removed? It’s still linked to on their twitter. DemonDays64 | Tell me if I'm doing something wrong :P 03:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Website is broken 

message: Hello fellow editors, I have assessed this article in accordance to the assessment guide for India related articles and rated it as a Start-Class Mid-Importance article.
Before tagging it for reassessment, address the following issues:
* Lead is too short, see WP:Lead
* Article needs expansion
* Article needs image
Ankit (Talk with me) 10:59, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment 

message: Nationalis Communist Party 2409:4042:28B:9F4F:0:0:1D0F:C0A1 (talk) 10:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationalis Communist Party 

message: So I'm joing study 106.79.208.239 (talk) 04:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am interested in politics 

message: As Election Commission of India has recognised Ajit Pawar faction as NCP, Sharad Pawar faction shall be recognised as another party just like Shiv Sena and SS (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) WikiEdits2003 (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ajit Pawar faction vs Sharad Pawar faction  

message: someone has mentioned anti-communalism as part of the ideology of Ajit Pawar's NCP. Is there any basis for this? Dead&intp (talk) 09:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti communalism 

message: In the realm of Indian politics, controversies arise on a daily basis. It's unnecessary to include every single daily controversy or news item unless the individual in question has been convicted by the Indian Judiciary or has served a considerable amount of time in jail. Also, Having a separate controversies section in articles isn't ideal. Instead, the pertinent issues should be addressed within the relevant sections of the individual's career articles, rather than consolidating them into a section that may incite negativity. Criticism and controversies section will be trimmed heavily in due time. Do no revert or engage in edit wars. I would request editors to discuss here on talk page before adding them. Thank you. Tcspower (talk) 07:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism and controversies
Talk:Thornton Quarry

message: I couldn't find good info on the "largest stone quarries", but from things I ran across, it sounds this is often refered to as the second or third largest quarry in the world, but these may be bigger:
* McCook Quarry in McCook, IL
* Rock of Ages Granite Quarry in Barre, VT
--Interiot 20:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: If anyone knows, it would be nice to say what kind of rock is quarried at this site. I'm guessing limestone, but we don't guess on Wikipedia! Jnmwiki (talk) 03:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Type of rock 

message: I started a section on the use of the Thornton Quarry to hold stormwater prior to treatment, under contract with Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago since 1998. I took info from other Wikipedia articles but used no other sources. I suppose some of those are needed. - - Prairieplant (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contract with MWRD
Talk:Wally Gator

message: Wally did also appear in an episode of Sealab 2021. The episodes title was "Fusebox" and Wally is first mentioned and can later be seen for a while. --212.65.19.208 20:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sealab 2021 

message: Just, wondering, but does the Wally Gator show air on Boomerang currently?? 68.195.110.145 00:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boomerang 

message: I don't see the German, Dutch, Chinese, Hebrew, Swedish or Russian titles. What is Wally Gator known as in those languages? 128.135.73.21 (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles in other languages 

message: I only recall that on Quick Draw, but regardless the Warner Archive has already promised everything from the library will at least see release from the archive if not in stores, and i feel the whole argument doesn't hold up. Some of the store releases clearly weren't from the best masters, and more than likely that have some decent rolls around to make the dvd transfer, they can't be that bad.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.158 (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  When was Wally added to the "weak masters" argument 

message: A few weeks ago I happened upon an 'Analysis' section in the Yogi Bear article which struck me as being out of place given that it contained an application of Critical Theory to a subject not related to this field. Since Critical Theory is a decidedly non-neutral paradigm this was very much out of place in the article on a cartoon bear. I also noticed the section had been removed and re-instated several times with justifications which themselves violated NPOV by claiming that the material was relevant to the subject. I therefore added a note to the talk page for the article and removed the section with the admonition to justify a re-instatement in some way. The section was re-instated without justification so I removed it a second time, again asking for a justification why this clear NPOV violation should be upheld. Given the strange combination of subject matter - critical theory applied to cartoon figures - I decided to check whether this NPOV violation occurred in other articles, which it turned out it does. Since Wikipedia is not a political action platform these sections have no place here. I will therefore remove the 'Analysis' section with the stated justification. If another editor wants to revert this removal he or she should justify this in some way by explaining why an expression of political activism has a place in a Wikipedia entry on a cartoon figure.
Yetanwiki (talk) 23:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analysis section removed - NPOV violation
Talk:Zhejiang-Jiangxi campaign

message: Japanese biological weapons boomeranged on their own soldiers and resulted in 10,000 Japanese casualties and 1,700 dead  in 1942 in Chekiang (Zhejiang)
http://books.google.com/books?id=lILltXBTo8oC&pg=PA19&dq=10,000+summer+1942+biological+weapons+chekiang&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FNhTU9bhIZHmsASIpIKgDg&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=10%2C000%20summer%201942%20biological%20weapons%20chekiang&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZzlNgS70OHAC&pg=PA171&dq=10,000+summer+1942+biological+weapons&hl=en&sa=X&ei=H9hTU8L5LZWysQSG-YHACw&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=10%2C000%20summer%201942%20biological%20weapons&f=false
Rajmaan (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boomerang Biological weapons attack which killed Japanese soldiers 
Talk:Battle of South Guangxi

message: The date range crosses a year boundary, but only one year is specified: 1939.  It is tied to the end date, but its position in the campaignbox suggests the opposite.  Was this battle fought from 1938-1939 or from 1939-1940? Roy Al Blue 21:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Date corrected. Thanks ;) -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 00:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date confusion 
Talk:January 28 incident

message: The background section seems garbled. japanese military instigated anti japanese protests to justify the war? there are no citations for it so if there is no feedback i'll change it to an upsurge in ani japanese feeling. remove the whole bit about blaming it on the jap military  59.178.195.47 (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Garbled 

message: Currently there are two citations used for the Japanese casualty figure. Both are English-language sources.
One citation is Stephen Robinson's “Eight Hundred Heroes: China's Lost Battalion and the Fall of Shanghai”, which cites “Grescoe, Shanghai Grand, 923/8920”. This happens to be the other citation used. 
Grescoe's work states "The cost, though, was enormous. The Japanese had boasted they could take Shanghai in four hours. The battle lasted for five weeks, and cost the lives of 3,000 of their best troops. The shelling, bombardment, and street fighting destroyed 85 per cent of the buildings in Chapei, and killed 10,000 Chinese civilians.” Taras Grescoe “Shanghai Grand”, page 134. 
Unfortunately Grescoe's work does not include proper citations, merely notes, and thus there is no citation in the text to verify the origin of this figure. 
In regards to this, I will be updating the figure to the claim made directly by the Japanese military in their official battle history. If one wishes to add Western and/or Chinese estimates, please be my guest, but I strongly recommend using works which include proper citations and to avoid double citing works for a single claim.
-Adachi  Adachi1939 (talk) 02:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese casualty figure
Talk:Sixty-three (card game)

message: "Carleton County, New Brunswick, Cape Breton" doesn't make sense.  There's a Carleton County in New Brunswick all right, but Cape Breton is part of Nova Scotia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.130.234.177 (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Location

message: Hi, please add some links or information that shows this game as notable. At the moment I'm getting 0 google hits for this game. - FrancisTyers 20:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability
Talk:New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation

message: Uh, as much of a mouthful as it is, "New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation" is this agency's official name (it's even in the logo on the page). "New York State Parks" should redirect to that, not the other way around. Daniel Case 20:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: New York State Parks now redirects to List of New York state parks. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 09:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect has it backwards

message: No mention of the Natural Heritage Trust here. Related information may be found at this link. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 21:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, this is a little complicated; the Natural Heritage Trust seems to be independent of NYSOPRHP, and partner with NYSDEC and NYSDOS as well; so while they could be covered here, it may be most appropriate to stub out a separate article for them. I'll see what I can dig up.(To be honest when I read the name at first I thought this was about the New York Natural Heritage Program, which I'm a little more familiar with, and I think they deserve an article too...) Antepenultimate (talk) 04:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi , Thanks for your note. As a New York state public-benefit corporation, the NYS Natural Heritage Trust could be included in that article, too. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 11:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, , for adding Natural Heritage Trust to the NYS public-benefit corporations article. I've created a redirect to take readers to that section, plus a hatnote at Natural Heritage Trust. If/ as noteworthy, a standalone article could be developed in place of the redirect. Good for now? Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 14:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that should cover it for now, thanks for tying up the loose ends. I wasn't able to immediately dig up any substantive secondary sources (there's a sea of minor mentions to dig through), so redirecting to their small section at New York state public-benefit corporations works for me. I was hoping to find some information to add it to this article under a historical context, but oddly the book they published (Fifty Years: New York State Parks, 1924-1974) makes no mention of them. Antepenultimate (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Natural Heritage Trust (New York)|Natural Heritage Trust]]
Talk:WESU

message: Why the "see alsos" to the two WSHU stations, neither of which article mentions WESU, and neither of which has any obvious relation other than being another public radio station in Connecticut? - Jmabel | Talk 02:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a time when WESU was simulcasting programming from WSHU/WSHU-FM (I remember hearing WESU mentioned in WSHU's TOH ID). If this is no longer the case, these "see alsos" should be removed. There is also a corresponding "see also" for WESU in the WSHU (AM) article. --DrChuck68 (talk) 13:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

text: After reading the 2004 press release in the references, I'm also wondering if the "see alsos" are even needed at all. There is mention of an association with WSHU, but it also mentions that they have access to multiple satellite feeds for NPR programming. --DrChuck68 (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why these "see alsos"?
Talk:St Dunstan's College

message: At present there is a discussion relating to the renaming of this category. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at this discussion page. Please note that the discussion is not a majority vote so contributions should be based on Wikipedia policies and independent sources. Cjc13 (talk) 13:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Old Dunstonians renaming
Talk:Optimum currency area

message: For more info: http://www.nber.org/~wbuiter/scotland.pdf
This needs a lot of work.  There needs be a mention of shocks as well.  Also, I would characterize capital and labor mobility together.  Price and wage flexibility are separate issues.  There is actually a fairly long list of criteria which I'll dig out.  Also needs to mentioned is why this is important.  Namely, exchange rates are an adjustment mechanism and your taking that away.
Bobarne 07:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: needs a lot of work

message: Sorry, but there is tons of evidence that Europe is by no means an OCA. I will provide more background as soon as I get the time.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.215.46.143 (talk) 14:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: "By these criteria the European Union does not constitute an Optimal Currency Area"

message: I pulled out the entire (small) criticism section, since it was unreferenced. CRETOG8(t/c) 16:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed criticism section 

message: Dr. Masson has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Masson has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
*Reference : Thomas Kigabo RUSUHUZWA & Paul Robert MASSON, 2012. "Design and Implementation of a Common Currency Area in the East African Community," Working Papers tecipa-451, University of Toronto, Department of Economics.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Masson's comment on this article 

message: Dr. Angeloni has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Angeloni has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
*Reference : Ignazio Angeloni & Michael Flad & Francesco Paolo Mongelli, 2005. "Economic and monetary integration of the new Member States - helping to chart the route," Occasional Paper Series 36, European Central Bank.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Angeloni's comment on this article 

message: Dr. Yetman has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Yetman has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
*Reference : Michael B. Devereux & Gregor W. Smith & James Yetman, 2009. "Consumption and Real Exchange Rates in Professional Forecasts," Working Papers 1195, Queen's University, Department of Economics.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Yetman's comment on this article
Talk:Ellen Cleghorne

message: I don't think the entries should be merged.  Ellen's and other cast members pages need to be updated and/or expanded. Gmosaki 21:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Gmosaki, the page shouldn't be merged, but expanded.Deyyaz [ Talk | Contribs ] 14:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Template talk:Db-reason

message: Please add a link to :zh:Template:Db-reason. Thank you.--Hello World! 15:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Request completed some time ago. —Doug Bell talk 08:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: zh:Template:Db-reason

message: In case any one does watch this page, please see Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#CAT:CSD.  Dragons flight 22:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need for stronger request for reasons 

message: Is there a way to change this template to clarify that the person adding it should NOT remove the dletion tag?  I can't find the text/code for that in the template.  Thanks! Avraham 08:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: suggestions

message: The "Please note:" at the top of this page refers to a "new" template.  Is an update of that note in order?  (SEWilco 05:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Still new?

message: There should be usage instructions so people don't have to read the template code to know how to use it.  (SEWilco 05:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instructions 

message: I've had several admins remove this tag from articles because, in short, they say its use isn't permitted.  Is this an outlaw template?  Should it be deleted?  If not, then what exactly is its appropriate use?  Rklawton 15:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete this template?

message: Why doesn't the template page include an explanation of how to use this template??? It took me almost an hour to find that the reason must be enclosed within "no wiki" and "/nowiki" tags. -mbeychok 03:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: nowiki tags aren't required... -- Ned Scott 06:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not include instructions on how to use this template? 

message: Ok, that bothers me for too long, anyone knows what "db" stands for? I assume the D is for Deletion, but B? -- lucasbfr talk 08:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Db=Delete because.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "db" 

message: I have just used this template, but it is not working properly. It is displaying "NO REASON GIVEN" when I had entered a reason:
*
Ta. --Mais oui! 06:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to add "1=" to the reason to have it display.  I'm making a modification where it shows additional documentation to describe this.  It looks like this:
Comments? --Sigma 7 05:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Good idea! -- lucasbfr talk 06:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template not working properly