lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bamadude

message: Would it really have hurt to keep this open long enough to gauge a community opinion? This rather blatantly fails the condition of "Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity," and is quite different from the normal type of page WP:CSD#G10 is thought to apply to (no actual subject of attack; more of a political statement than an attack page). CSD is for uncontroversial deletions, not securing deletions that may or may not otherwise be deemed appropriate. — xDanielx T/C 18:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, I think you've put a little to much faith in our ability to find meaningful insight in a page full of attacks. The fact that he dressed up his attacks as "here's what I think about Wikipedia" doesn't change the fact that it was simply a list of complaints and attacks about other users he'd been accumulating as he continued to find himself in disputes with them. How could it possibly be construed as a "political statement" or something meant to constructively contribute? Wikipedia is FULL of mostly young people who, because they have low self-esteem and haven't made any significant impact in this world, have nothing but their pride, their words and their reputation, so when you step on any or all of these things, they get very hurt. Many of them have nothing better to do but edit this site and they spend an awful long obsessive time doing so. Can you honestly tell me that this represents a good faith effort to "let people know about your activities on Wikipedia, and your opinions about Wikipedia."? If you check WP:USERPAGE, it explicitly states "material that can be construed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws" is not allowed, and that's exactly what this is. --Cheeser1 19:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mean to start a big brouhaha, but you're cherry picking. — xDanielx T/C 00:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mean to disagree, but I disagree. The entire page was full of comments similar to that. The policies are clear. I'm not taking anything in policy out of context. I don't know which you think I'm cherry picking (the user page or the policy), but I'm doing no such thing in either case. --Cheeser1 01:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Fox Business

message: What has the Federal reserve been doing to get ahead of inflation besides nothing? Was there a deal struck between the White House and Mr.Powell so he would keep his job as chairman? Something appears to be wrong here. 24.186.195.163 (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interest rates 

message: Just look at what Canadian president did to the truckers he froze their accounts if we just have digital currency or government can do that to us 2601:988:8200:1B99:5CF3:23AA:F7B2:D973 (talk) 17:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bitcoin
Talk:German aircraft production during World War II

message: I put the total at the end of the table which made good view to the users about the summary of productions.
I believe we need to revise the numbers from different sources..
The current numbers obtained from web source - which already not live !!
--Hiens (talk) 10:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different Reliable Sources Required 

message: No mention of Horten [] who invented the "Flying Wing" Ho229. It flew in jan. 1945, but never saw production as the Nazi regime had lost its production capacity.
Also, the so-called Me 109 was initially Bf109, made by Bayerische Flugzeugwerke. At the time. Prof. Willi Messerschmidt had no factory of his own Messerschmidt was not the only designer if the Bf109, the other was Robert Lusser.
I sugest BF and Horten be added to the list Historygypsy (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Horten was so minor as to be insignificant - the brothers didn't produce a single aircraft that could be used for military purposes, not even for training, and the 109 used both interchangeably - indeed the Me designator was in use well before the German officials decided to change from one to the other.NiD.29 (talk) 05:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reminder 

message: A disclaimer could be included referring to how German factories were bombed paired with a shortage in materials to explain the lacking numbers in later years.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.198.186 (talk) 16:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bombed factories 

message: — Assignment last updated by Jweat24 (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: English 102 Section 5
Talk:Teen Series

message: Why are only the F-14 and F/A-18 described as supersonic? Isn't the entire teen series supersonic? Why are only the F-14 and F-15 described as twin-engine? Isn't the F/A-18 also twin-engine? Why is the number of seats only mentioned for the F-14? I don't mean to be a jerk, and I'm certainly no expert in this field, so if there are reasons for the ways the different aircraft are described, please let me know. If not, I will attempt to make the descriptions more consistent. Maybe a table comparing their features would be even better. -AndrewDressel (talk) 11:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This article doesn't need to say anything except an explanation of the term "Teen Series" and a list of the aircraft it includes (with wikilinks of course). I.e. I think the copies of the ledes from the individual aircraft articles should be removed from this article (thus avoiding unnecessary work when refs go bad etc) - at most one sentence per aircraft . There might be a point in a table comparing for example "US fighters of the Cold War era", but not a table comparing aircraft selected by the initial digit of their designation. DexDor (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistent descriptions 

message: Ist the F/A-18 Super Hornet still considered to be part of the Teen Series or not? --KnightMove (talk) 06:34, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Super Hornet included?
Category talk:Rolling stock of China

message: From Talk:DF4:
"I removed/-named this page back to the original DF4, as the renaming to China Railway Class did not make anysense in the context that the Chinese do not use this terminology and only (afaik) applies to British railways. Biscuittin, if you still want to move the page, please discuss it here first. Thanks, Poeloq"
That would suggest "China Railways xxx", rather than the current "China Railways Class xxx" or just "xxx", then?  The relevant style guide specifies the format (railway) (class) or (manufacturer) (model); it doesn't require the word "class" (see e.g.:Category:EMD locomotives), which I agree shouldn't be there if the country/company in question doesn't normally say "Class xx".--QuantumEngineer 18:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really mind what we call it as long as we make it clear that it is a railway locomotive and not a computer or a motorbike.  DF4 by itself is meaningless. Biscuittin 21:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I've just noticed that all the China Railways Electric Locomotives are headed "China Railways Class xxx" and that was without any help from me. Biscuittin 00:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming conventions

message: Gathered together for my own easy reference but may be of use to others:
Manufacturers
Dalian DF4B/C/D/DD, DF6, DF10D/F, SS4, SS7E and a few units (specifications in Chinese only: Babelfish translation)
Datong SS3B, SS4G, SS6B, SS7C/D/E, China Star
Sifang No apparent specifications
Tangshan
Zhuzhou SS3/B, SS4/B, SS6/B, SS8, SS9, DJ, DJ1, DJ2, DDJ1, China Star
Ziyang DF4B/C/CA1A, DF8B/BJ, DF12, SS3/B, SS4G
Other (warning: probably fail WP:SPS)
Railways of China diesel and electric, including units
Railography steam and diesel
Hans Schaefer mostly Jitong Railway/QJ
--QuantumEngineer 15:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful sources
Talk:Lea (surname)

message: There were several uncited paragraphs of information about the Lea surname... as well as a three-year-old  tag. I removed the uncited content and the tag here and am placing this note here in the event that someone would like to research this and add citations.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lea surname verbiage
Talk:Massacre of Lwów professors

message: Crimes against humanity is a specific legal concept. In order to be included in the category, the event (s) must have been prosecuted as a crime against humanity, or at a bare minimum be described as such by most reliable sources. Most of the articles that were formerly in this category did not mention crimes against humanity at all, and the inclusion of the category was purely original research. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crimes against humanity category removal
Talk:Benedictus Appenzeller

message: I've reviewed this article as part of the Composers project review of its B-class articles.  This article is B-class; it could use a works list and a few more inline citations.  My review is on the comments page; questions and comments should be left here or on my talk page. Magic♪piano 17:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Composer project review
Talk:Electoral reform in California

message: This is a nice start, but it is in need of much expansion. First of all, there seems to be no discussion of any type of electoral reform in the state prior to 2000. The progressive era implementation of recall, referendum, and initiative reforms should be covered. Any reform for women voting, minority voting, or changes in voting age prior to Vasconcellos's proposal to allow 14 year olds to vote should also be covered. I'm sure there are many other areas of California election law reform during it's 150+ year history that would be very nice additions to the article. Gentgeen (talk) 09:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I recently wrote an article, Cross-filing that sheds a bit of historical light on things and whose refs might be helpful.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs expansion
Talk:Beat (charity)

message: User: Espresso Addict found quite a few sources. Please review and include them--Victor falk 19:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: I have been contacted offwiki by someone associated with the charity to request that the article be moved to reflect the fact that the charity has been known as Beat since 2007. This is supported by the charity's website (). A title such as Beat (charity) would seem appropriate. If anyone has any suggestions or comments please make them here, or just move the page if you agree! Espresso Addict (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of article 
Talk:Electoral reform in Washington, D.C.

message: I wanted to raise a question about the final line: as it stands, it says that, if DC joined the NPVIC, its electoral votes would go to the party winning a majority of the popular vote, rather than "the Democratic ticket". While as a practical matter it's blindingly obvious that, for the foreseeable future, DC will always vote majority-Democratic, that doesn't mean we should word it as such in the article. I would suggest a change to reflect the fact that DC doesn't automatically vote Democratic. If no one objects in the next day or two, I'll go ahead and change it. dcd139 (talk) 04:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias?
Talk:Electoral reform in American Samoa

message: (Quote from current page text:)
There have also been proposals to grant American Samoa a vote in the United States Congress, but these would likely face similar constitutional questions as proposals to grant the District of Columbia full representation in Congress.
: Why would American Samoa face similar Constitutional Questions as D.C. Statehood does?  It seems to me American Samoa would be more analogous to, say Hawaiian Statehood - it is a distinct geographical entity, non-contiguous with the rest of the United States.  The only question would be with regards to its relatively low population compared to, say, Wyoming or D.C.   
: D.C., on the other hand, has significant Constitutional questions due to how it was created and the powers Congress is explicitly granted over it, but it certainly has no population issue, having a population well within range of Wyoming's to make it justifiable as a state on that score.
: In sum, DC and AS both have questions that would block them from statehood, but they are by no means similar questions.  -96.229.15.45 (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Constitutional Questions?

message: Is there any likelihood that this article will ever grow beyond a couple of paragraphs?  Why not merge it into Politics of American Samoa and/or Elections in American Samoa? —Tamfang (talk) 00:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  stub; merge? 
Talk:Youth suffrage

message: I would like to propose adding a new section concerning the discussion on the total abolition of voting age limits. However, I am not sure whether it is more appropriate to add it under this article or rather in the article Voting age? What do you think? I suppose it rather fits in this section, as a youth and children's suffrage in its literal meaning would require the total abolition of any age limits (For further information on the issue, cf. my comment in the discussion-section of the Voting age-article). --N.Al-Saratan (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a section here for abolition and have tried to keep the Voting Age article focused on data and the youth suffrage article focused on arguments and debates about where to set the age with lots of linking back and forth. Superb Owl (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consider New Section: Total Abolition of Voting Age Limits 

message: Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man allow voting at age 16.  See references at "Voting age". AJRG (talk) 13:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crown Dependencies 

message: There are six arguments in favour, none of which are criticised. There is only one argument against, and criticism of this argument is given more space than the argument itself.
Robin S. Taylor (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. TheKuygeriancontribsuserpage 13:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Arguments Section Is Unbalanced 

message: I think s06e17 of The West Wing ("A Good Day") deserves a mention. Excerpts here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSDxg-bDw1A . Food for thought.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mczyzewski (talk • contribs) 17:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  In popular culture 

message: This section should be divided into (i) an "Impact" section and an (ii) "Politics of Youth Suffrage" section. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Arguments for and against youth suffrage" 

message: Shouldn't ==Arguments for and against youth suffrage==, ==Impact==, and ==Demeny voting== be before example countries (as of now US and VE)?
Letting readers know the premise and understand the topic before giving them examples? TheKuygeriancontribsuserpage 13:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section Order
Talk:That's Right (Ciara song)

message: When?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Welovekes (talk • contribs) 20:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: SINGLE RELEASE

message: The song hasn't been produced by Lil Jon...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.220.175.191 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Production
Talk:Juan Andreu Almazán

message: Please note that this article is still being translated from :es:Juan Andreu Almazán. Any and all help is appreciated. --Agüeybaná 19:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation 
Talk:Christianization of Iceland

message: In Bishop of Reykjavik (Catholic) there is also a part on the "Christianization of Iceland" - couldn't these two articles be combined or made to one article? Gecko78 19:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: That will do.  Thank you.  --VKokielov (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  yes! 

message: I realize the whole article is almost unreferenced (well no inline refs anyway), but in particular the section of text about "the exposure of infants", is unacceptable because as it is it sounds to much like blood libel.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.40.127 (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Exposure of infants was common throughout large parts of Europe in pre-Christian times.  I don't see the connection with blood libel, 'false and sensationalized allegations that a person or group engages in human sacrifice, often accompanied by the claim the blood of victims is used in various rituals and/or acts of cannibalism.'   Your point seems spurious.  -- Palthrow (talk) 12:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have heard of this before, and perhaps you are right. However until some references for this particular statement are provided it seems best left out, because its a fairly controversial thing to say. 119.224.40.127 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 12:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: blood libel

message: Akigka reverted all my recent changes saying I added a spam link?  But the link is the same one from the main Iceland article.  And if he though the link was spam, then just remove the link.  For consistency sake, the text I added is the same as the main Iceland article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.19.169.231 (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hope we can have a discussion about this. The way i see it you are c/p-ing the same text across a number of pages who touch on the subject of the settlement of Iceland even where that text is obviously irrelevant, and using a timeline of medieval Greenland history as reference. I may have been rash in supposing that you were pushing that reference for strange purposes - it just seemed so obviously irrelevant and useless as reference (of the thousands that could be used: including online publications of Landnáma in various languages). It is, however, not good practice IMHO to simply copy-paste the same text to many articles (overwriting what was there before). Why do you think this particular person in Landnáma is so important that it needs be mentioned on every page that touches on the subject? --Akigka (talk) 01:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trigger happy
Talk:Balikpapan-class landing craft heavy

message: Two of the Balikpapan-class vessels, Tarakan and Brunei were to be donated to the Philippines Navy in May 2015. As of mid-June, this does not appear to have occurred. The only piece of info I can find about it is from a website called The Philippine Pride, which claims here that delivery has been delayed by at least three months. However, although it styles itself as a news site, all of the articles are written by the one person, leading me to question its suitability as a reliable, published source. Can anyone shed some light on what's happened to the two landing craft (either in support of this article, or otherwise)? -- saberwyn 04:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where have Tarakan and Brunei gotten to? 

message: It seems to me that the title of the page should be "Balikpapan-class heavy landing craft". I dont know why it is "landing craft heavy" instead.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.41.185.106 (talk) 01:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change Article Title?
Talk:Jeffrey Hart

message: This guy admitted plagiarizing: http://www.news-sentinel.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080229/NEWS02/802290342/1001
Can a Wiki-person add that to his biography?  Thanks 67.187.233.227 (talk) 18:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Frances Lynn

message: This article seems to have been written by the person that the article is about. This may be a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and cause the article to be most her Wikipedia:Point of view. IP4240207xx 19:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: COI & POV

message: Whatever other issues there are, this article needs sourcing. The general requirement of WP:V is reliable third-party sources about, not by, the subject - and to be blunt, everything I can find is promotional. Nothing in NewsBank, Times archive, Google Books ... Gordonofcartoon 16:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sourcing
Talk:Charlemagne-class battleship

message: *Article really needs citations. Check individual ship articles, they are relatively well-cited, and much of the infomation could be copied over here.
*Information on the planning and construction of the ships would be a good addition.
*Identifying the derivative ship designs alluded to in the lead would also be a good addition. -- saberwyn 00:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments/suggestions following assessment

message: I've disabled citation bot until I find out why publisher data is being removed from one journal citation.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation bot denied access
Template talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums

message: This template should be enhanced so that it includes "Importance." Captain Zyrain 20:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. To add it, someone needs to add
 
 |importance = 
to the template, then create all the required categories (I would do it but I'm not very active in this WikiProject). Adabow (talk)  06:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Importance

message: The edit request just above this makes so much sense. I wonder why it hasn't been done yet. Perhaps, someone should seriously consider implimenting it. Thanks! ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 14:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 29 January 2022
Talk:Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions

message: In articles about books, the convention is to keep the summary of the content to a maximum of 600 words. I think this needs to be applied to the current article. As of this version, the section "Content" has 2,863 words, including some excessively specific detail about the implementation of the convention. Some of this section is about how the convention was negotiated, and this needs to be moved to a more relevant section so that a section of the article is dedicated to a summary of the content. Hence I intend to do, and am in the process of, a quite drastic reduction in the text size of the article. The style of the article when I started was very repetitive and uses a lot of internal UN terminology that will baffle the lay reader, so there are multiple reasons why the text needs to be cut down. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: After greatly cutting down, it's down to 1,229 words. For now, I'll not try any drastic further cuts because that would leave some of the meat of the convention unrepresented. A possible way forward is to be less document-centric: rather than summarising the full content of the document in sequence, having sections describing what goals it proposed, what actions it required states to take etc. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  600 word summary
Talk:Relativistic electron beam

message: I canged the tempus in the use of REBs in PEARL as the text referenced to seem to propose such a facility rather then descibing an existing one.  That text does mention the existance of free electron lasers (FELs), so I added a link to that article (they seem intriguing and exotic ;). I also added a link to Relativistic particle. Johan G 20:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)