lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Parkinson's law

message: The penultimate sentence of the article mentions in passing that one chapter of Parkinson's Law documents the principle of promotion to the level of incompetence that has more recently been called the "Peter Principle" by people who've had the bad luck never to have read Parkinson.
I believe that this fact of prior publication deserves more than just a snippet of a run-on sentence and should have its own subsection.  And I believe that the Peter principle article should be rewritten to acknowledge Parkinson's prior publication.  Briankharvey (talk) 07:54, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parkinson vs. Peter 

message: Cut and pasted from: https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-government-so-bad-at-doing-things-that-capitalism-naturally-excels-at-is-the-world-doomed-to-the-realities-of-capitalism-as-a-superior-social-system-and-henceforth-a-theory-of-human-nature-which-is-what/answer/Susanna-Viljanen:  "economist and author Cyril Northcote Parkinson (of the Parkinson’s Laws fame) and he came to the conclusion that when an institution (private or public) grows larger than a certain limit, it becomes inefficient and bloated. This is the reason why monopolies - private or public - are inefficient.
The underlying reason is the length of the feedback loops. This was affirmed by Donella Meadows in her 12 leverage points’ theorem." 74.127.200.151 (talk) 11:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Parkinson's Law? 

message: I'm not familiar with this topic, I so I haven't changed anything, but the equation seems wrong (on dimensional and logical grounds) is it possible it should be m^k vs k^m in the numerator? 198.84.249.151 (talk) 10:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  formula error? 

message: No criticisms section?  why not. 120.21.232.142 (talk) 11:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms section needed 

message: It seems pretty clear that the term “Parkinson's Law” is used in two meanings, and the article is currently a mixture of the two:
#  work expanding to fill the time available,
#  bureaucracy / number of employees tends to grow
I didn't look at the entire edit history, but it seems like basically people will keep adding the “other” meaning no matter what; here are some example edits:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parkinson%27s_law&diff=next&oldid=697856975
* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parkinson%27s_law&diff=prev&oldid=791119771
* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parkinson%27s_law&diff=prev&oldid=1162268038
Both have some validity (the former seems to have more popular usage, and the latter is the original), so it seems that if the article tries to insist on one meaning it will ultimately be short-lived as the other meaning will get added at some point. So it would be good to more explicitly mention the two meanings, and separate out sections that have to do with each. Shreevatsa (talk) 17:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done that a bit. More clean-up may be needed. Shreevatsa (talk) 17:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two meanings
Talk:Sexual selection

message: Hi everyone,
Under "Modern theory", there is a photograph of the giant deer, Megaloceros giganteus, with a note that its enormous antlers may have helped "drive it" to extinction, and a reference to a classic paper by Stephen Jay Gould about the subject. What Gould was arguing, however, was that although these antlers might have been detrimental to the species' survival during post-glacial climatic changes in Ireland (where many M. giganteus specimens have been found), the main point of that paper was a counter-argument to the teleological idea that species can be purposefully "driven" to extinction by selective forces.
I don't know of a good way to reword the caption of that photograph, but thought that this was an important point for this article.
--OpenBarry (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Reworded. In general, given the metaphorical nature of language, it is impossible to avoid sounding teleological, but there's certainly no indication of intention here; I'm a bit surprised anyone would ascribe agency to a pair of antlers, however bulky. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teleological reasoning reference concern 

message: How does favouring a more attractive partner favour reproductive success? Conceivably so for subsequent generations, but not immediately evident why it would confer 'success' on the current generation. If so, this should be expressed more explicitly.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.210.84 (talk) 04:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  How? 

message: What constitutes 'reproductive fitness' in a species? And the female knows what constitutes 'reproductive fitness'? How does she know? From her innate knowledge and understanding of molecular biology??? And the female is able to discern the presence or absence of this 'fitness' in a mate? How, exactly? Why is this not pseudoscientific nonsense? Intellectual garbage? Humans chiefly use only the nebulous and subjective qualities of intellectual and physical attractiveness. With respect to other organisms we can only speculate, surely.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.210.84 (talk) 05:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obvious Fallacy 

message: And .... females DON'T (?) maximise their reproductive 'success', as males purportedly do, by maximising their number of partners, because ......why, exctly???? 122.151.210.84 (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for asking. No, it's not sexist. Males make millions of small gametes, so reproductive success can mean fertilising a large number of partners. The same doesn't necessarily work for females; in mammals, the number of pregnancies a female can have is limited - still more so in species which provide lengthy parental care - so the best strategy for the female is to select the 'best' males. But read the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  And Sexist
Talk:Fair trade

message: From the introduction: a social movement whose stated goal is to help producers in developing countries achieve better trading conditions and to promote slave trades.  This doesn't make any sense. What does and promote slave trades mean? I've added a "clarification needed" tag.  Omc (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  and promote slave trades 

message: Don't know what this was meant to say, but as it stands, its obviously nonsensical (which farmers pay which?). 5.56.252.190 (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That entire paragraph needs a re-write for readability and content.  A "cooperative" form of organization is not required.  "Coffee packer" is an invented, undefined term. "The exporting cooperative can spend the money in several ways ..." is meaningless as there are no special restrictions. 24.165.184.112 (talk) 08:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The cooperatives sometimes pay farmers a higher price than farmers do" 

message: The sites History of Fair Trade | World Fair Trade Organization (wfto.com)
History of the Fair Trade Movement - End Slavery Now
History of Fair Trade (oneworldfairtrade.net) and
Our History - Fair Trade Certified
all give (not-always -agreeing) histories of the movement.
Perhaps the best source would be fair trade | History, Criticism, & Facts | Britannica Kdammers (talk) 04:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  History needed 

message: The length of this article was highlighted in January 2018 but I can't see any discussion about whether it should be shortened or divided into separate articles? I agree it is long. It could be shortened by taking out all the material related to individual commodities and transferring any additional material to Fair trade coffee, Fair trade cocoa, Fair trade textiles etc. The last of these would need to be created. BobKilcoyne (talk) 13:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of article
Talk:Transport in Egypt

message: An article in "The Middle East" magazine of April 2005 credits Egyptian Railways as having started in 1825.
This beats even the ground breaking Liverpool and Manchester Railway opened in 1830. The date surely cannot be right.
When did Egyptian Railways start. 1835 or 1845 would sound more reasonable.
:It started in 1852. --Meno25 12:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When did Egypt Railways start? 

message: This statement of fact cites the US Department of State website on international travel. That website does not put forward any source for the claim. After a quick search, I was unable to find any data or estimates on the number of miles driven in Egypt. Without that data it would be impossible to measure the number of road fatalities per mile driven. On a per capita basis however, Egypt has a much lower road fatality rate than the US according to this paper: http://www.transport-links.org/transport_links/filearea/publications/1_771_Pa3568.pdf  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.94.118.15 (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Egypt has one of the highest incidence of road fatalities per miles driven in the world" 

message: I am surprised that there is not much information on the usage of roads or the Nile as transport. I am currently researching these topics, so will add anything I find. Please contribute if you can. --62.49.39.202 (talk) 14:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information on roadways and the Nile
Talk:Queen Elizabeth II

message: I don't understand the motive for changing "Queen Elizabeth II" - which is the name of the liner - to "Queen Elizabeth 2" - which isn't. Deb
:I think the ship is in fact called "Queen Elizabeth 2".  That's what the Cunard website (www.cunardline.com) seems to say as well.  Calling it "Queen Elizabeth II" is quite common, but I think it's incorrect. Enchanter
Thanks for putting me right - though I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't checked the web site.  I remember the ship being launched and I'm certain it was launched as Queen Elizabeth "the Second", but I suppose that wouldn't necessarily mean Roman numerals!Deb
Should we redirect this page to the queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom?
Or is it likely that readers looking for the ship RMS Queen Elizabeth 2 will get confused without a disambiguating page?
I think ladies are more important than ships, but I will go along with whatever JHK. Deb and others decide. Ed Poor, Thursday, April 18, 2002
:The Globe and Mail Style Guide gives Queen Elizabeth 2 (arabic numeral) for the ship and Elizabeth II (roman numeral) for the monarch. (Actually, they just call her the Queen.) - Montréalais
I made this into a disambiguation page because I found it with a bit on both & links. The point is that this page name is non-canonical in either case: the woman needs the name of the country she is monarch of; the ship needs the prefix. If we make this intoa  redirect, the page on Elizabeth could do with a mention of the ship (because many assume it is named after her, incorrectly), so all's happy there. All the links I fixed that came here were about the person, I think.  -- Tarquin 18:03 Oct 6, 2002 (UTC)
All links pointing here refer to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Monarchs do not need countries listed after their names. Similarly titled pages all redirect to the monarch (King George VI, etc.) It only makes sense for this to redirect to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, which also mentions the ship. --Jiang 06:34, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Talk:Sociobiology

message: 5th graph, under Sociobiological theory, reads:
"Anthropologist Colin Turnbull found another supporting example (described in The Mountain People, 1972) about an African tribe, the "Ik," which he said so lacked altruism that the society lost battles with neighboring tribes. His controversial conclusions raised responses among anthropologists and journalists."
This paragraph needs a lot of explanation.  Colin Turnbull's findings were "another supporting example" of what, exactly?   Also, what is the connection between altruism and losing battles?  Why would a society lacking in altruism lose battles with neighbours?  Also, what exactly were his controversial conclusions?
--User:Pariah 05:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing paragraph

message: This article has mixed AE and BE spellings, contrary to Wikipedia policy.  This version using "behavior" was early in the article's creation, so AE spelling should be used throughout, except of course in direct quotations. JamesMLane t c 06:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SOFIXIT? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling
Talk:Irina Privalova

message: says she won a medal in the 200m in 1992 - she did not. she won a medal in the 100 and in the relay.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.211.216.247 (talk) 11:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  inaccurate results in body copy 
Talk:Family

message: Of all the possible photos that could have been chosen for the top of the article, couldn't one be found in which the woman doesn't look like a reject from a bikers' gang?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.152.18.131 (talk) 06:06, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family photograph 

message: Mvvv. Mm 103.117.228.6 (talk) 16:02, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing patterns of family types in modern industrial society 

message: --table cut--
2804:214:82B3:D2F8:C8ED:DAEC:A508:BC4B (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This material has been repeatedly inserted and removed from article and talk page. Certes (talk) 14:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

text: This is off mission for this encyclopedia, please stop pasting it in over and over - no amount of that activity will make it appropriate for inclusion here. - MrOllie (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Relationships

message: The section "Family of choice" starts with this sentence: 'The term family of choice, also sometimes referred to as "chosen family" or "found family", is common within the LGBT community, veterans, individuals who have suffered abuse, and those who have no contact with biological "parents".' Why are there quotation marks around the word 'parents'? Is it intended to assert the idea that biological parents don't exist for some people? If so, how, exactly, did these people come into existence? Or is it intended to convey some other idea? Is so, what is this idea? I note that further along in the paragraph, we have the phrase: 'the biological family'. There are no quotation marks here. Are we to assume that there are biological families with no biological parents?
Another vocabulary question is what the word 'roots' means in the picture caption which reads 'Extended family with roots in Cape Town, Kimberley and Pretoria, South Africa'. It is not at all clear to me what the word 'roots' is intended to convey here.
I think some rewriting to clarify the intended meaning is definitely in order.Saintonge235 (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question about vocabulary 

message: Ans 2409:408C:9012:AFBF:0:0:1F2D:10B0 (talk) 10:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the family system has changed in modern life.  Please feel free to suggest specific edits to improve that part of the article. Certes (talk) 10:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  ಅಧುನಿಕ ಬದುಕಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಬದಲಗುಟ್ಟಿರುವ ಕುಟುಂಬ ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆ 

message: Give me Title 2402:8100:2748:2638:A028:E7B5:2525:67A2 (talk) 09:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family of six members
Talk:Multiplicative function

message: The part on proving the totient identity seems to be flawed... what if n is not a power of a prime? I'm not sure how to prove this identity... could somebody fix this? There might be a proof on the totient function page. CecilBlade 12:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classic totient identity 

message: I don't think the section on proving convolution identities belongs in Wikipedia. Deleted. -Zahlentheorie 21:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proving convolution identities deleted 

message: After careful study of the argument concerning deletion of the proof of totient identities page, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Totient_function/Proofs, I decided to re-instate the examples and add some more material concerning Dirichlet series, the goal being that we ultimately have a set of examples for the article on Perron's formula. -Zahlentheorie (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proving convolution identities re-instated 

message: The first remarks on this page are six years old but  XJam is mistaken; nonreal values of the subscript k are actually used. Ramanujan's formula
:\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{\sigma_a(n)\sigma_b(n)}{n^s}=\frac{\zeta(s)\zeta(s-a)\zeta(s-b)\zeta(s-a-b)}{\zeta(2s-a-b)}
is used in Ingham's proof that the zeta function does not vanish on the line real part = 1. It's a proof by contradiction which starts off by assuming a is a zero with real part 1 (and iirc b is its complex conjugate). The proof is in Titchmarsh, but I don't have it in front of me right now to give a page reference. Virginia-American (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{|\sigma_{ai}(n)|^2}{n^s}
=\frac{\zeta^2(s)\zeta(s-ai)\zeta(s+ai)}{\zeta(2s)}
Then assuming that 1 ± ai is a zero he derives a contradiction. 
Virginia-American (talk) 16:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment on old discussion

message: I know nothing about this topic, but the relationship between convolution and Dirichlet series looks analogous to the relationship between convolution of functions on the reals to multiplication of the corresponding Fourier or Laplace transforms.  Shouldn't this be pointed out? 72.75.67.226 (talk) 06:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a rough similarity. It is difficult to find a logical connection. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convolution .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.98.223.66 (talk) 14:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Convolution and Dirichlet series 

message: In the section entitled "Dirichlet series for some multiplicative functions", there should be restrictions on "s" if you want convergence. Usually, R(s) is bigger than 1 or 2.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.98.223.66 (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: R(s) is the real part of s.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.98.223.66 (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Convergence
Talk:Coup d'état

message: I have not heard about it before and google knows nothing about it... Is it just a joke, a political in-joke perhaps? 80.208.64.101 (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Just vandalism. CMD (talk) 01:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  2021 Bouvet Island coup
Talk:Nazism

message: In the sidebar it's stated that Orthodox Peronism is a variant of Nazism. That is an absolute lie. Peronism is an Inclusive, Industrial and Nationalist movement. Rejects the idea of a overpowered state and promulgates the harmony between capital and labor, so it cant be considered fascist. It's not a racist movement, because it is deeply Inclusive and born in a country that was built by people of many comunities. Peronism advocates for the fraternity of all the world communities and ethnicities. It firmly rejects violence. 
It has nothing to do with Nazism. 2800:810:54B:1332:E12F:E257:30A9:349D (talk) 13:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No doubt you can provide sources to support this utopian ideal.Acroterion (talk) 14:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Perón's authoritarian populism was explicitly fascist. He literally said things like this: "Mussolini was the greatest man of our century, but he committed certain disastrous errors. I, who have the advantage of his precedent before me, shall follow in his footsteps but also avoid his errors." Quoted by Donald C. Hodges in Argentina, 1943-1979: The National Revolution and Resistance (1988). Trakking (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2024 

message: Should have dates of origin & dates in power in 1st or 2nd paragraph. 87.223.101.43 (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add dates to first paragraph. 

message: In the description, the NAZI party is described as “far-right”. They were, in fact, the National Socialist Party. Factually speaking, they were “far-left”. They only became “far-right” because the Left wanted to disassociate themselves from the NAZI origins. BobTheLibertarian (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: See the #FAQ. — Czello (music) 22:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Ahistorical nonsense. See the FAQ at the top of this page. Acroterion (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2024
Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules

message: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."
Example:
If disruptive editing (which is a guideline) prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia which does (example exhausting the community's patience), ignore it? Sheep (talk • he/him) 19:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Disruptive editing never improves Wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you give some examples of disruptive editing? I have concerns that an editor is engaging in such, but would prefer clarification before I process. Thanks! XZealous (talk) 11:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: There are examples at WP:Disruptive editing. That is the best place to start. Blueboar (talk) 12:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification for "ignore all rules" 

message: I remember, many years ago, on an unmentionable BADSITE written as a loose parody of this one, there was a template that got put at the top of articles sometimes. It looked like one of our maintenance templates, but instead it just said:
I often find myself wishing we had one of these for Wikipedia. If we did, it would belong on this policy. Twelve words -- and twelve perfect words. What beauty! What simplicity! What power! jp×g 19:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Punk rock as hell, I agree. Dialmayo 12:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  This policy is perfect. 

message: I am not a lawyer, but there are Wikipedia policies with legal considerations. These rules are firmer than the regular policies. There might be needed clarifications. Thank you - Writehydra - talk page 20:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember that we only apply this policy in situations where a policy/rule is preventing us from improving an article. A edit that breaks a law would not be an improvement, and so IAR would not apply. Blueboar (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, wouldn't, "Crimes are not permitted on Wikipedia." apply to all articles, policies, guidelines, and so on? I can't think of a way to note this that wouldn't be superfluous. Rjjiii (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal Concerns regarding how the policy is laid out