lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Essence of Decision

message: Another full entry f/ a book where an entry did not exist before. Am primarily using the original 1971 edition; anyone w/1999 edition please add accordingly. --L. 17:22, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: Some quotes from the 1971 edition that may be useful:
*It must be noted, however, that an imaginative analyst can construct an account of value-maximizing choice for any action or set of actions performed by a government. (p. 35, used in the article already; goes on to state Allison's "Rationality theorem": "there exists no pattern of activity for which an imaginative analyst cannot write a large number of objective functions such that the pattern of activity maximizes each function.") Rl 10:21, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotes from the 1971 edition

message: RI, I created a separate article called the rationality theorem. Help? --L. 15:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Rationality Theorem
Talk:John W. Handy

message: Text of the article was obtained from U.S. Army site.
Darwinek 18:17, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Category talk:2006 films

message: from CFD:
I count 4 keep votes (including mine), and 1 merge vote for the original proposal of merging into :Category:Future_film_releases.  The other merge votes were for merging into :Category:Planned film releases, which is pretty much the same thing.  Anyway you slice it, there isn't a consensus to change, therefore it's a keep.  Kbdank71 18:35, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Proposal to merge :Category:2006_films, :Category:2007_films, and :Category:2008_films into a new category, :Category:Future_film_releases or :Category:Films_planned_for_release_after_2005.
Yes, I know that in the first case, the meaning of the category in terms of the preferred (? allowed) content changes continuously and is, therefore, ambiguous.  Also, I realize that the explicit "post-2005" category will need to be replaced/renamed on a yearly basis.  However, there is precedent for this particular topic to be addressed: :Category:2006 births; in this case, the argument was that one should not have a category named for a specific future event.  This doesn't preclude having a category that is named for a general future event.
My posting this proposal implies that I ...
*Agree to merge. Courtland 04:46, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
*Keep.  I can see removing 2006 births, because there aren't any yet.  But articles already exist for future movies.  Also, we won't have to change the category and/or move movies into the proper categories year after year.  (sorry, forgot to sign this)  Kbdank71 15:14, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge "future years in film" categories
Category talk:2007 films

message: from CFD:
I count 4 keep votes (including mine), and 1 merge vote for the original proposal of merging into :Category:Future_film_releases.  The other merge votes were for merging into :Category:Planned film releases, which is pretty much the same thing.  Anyway you slice it, there isn't a consensus to change, therefore it's a keep.  Kbdank71 18:40, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Proposal to merge :Category:2006_films, :Category:2007_films, and :Category:2008_films into a new category, :Category:Future_film_releases or :Category:Films_planned_for_release_after_2005.
Yes, I know that in the first case, the meaning of the category in terms of the preferred (? allowed) content changes continuously and is, therefore, ambiguous.  Also, I realize that the explicit "post-2005" category will need to be replaced/renamed on a yearly basis.  However, there is precedent for this particular topic to be addressed: :Category:2006 births; in this case, the argument was that one should not have a category named for a specific future event.  This doesn't preclude having a category that is named for a general future event.
My posting this proposal implies that I ...
*Agree to merge. Courtland 04:46, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
*Keep.  I can see removing 2006 births, because there aren't any yet.  But articles already exist for future movies.  Also, we won't have to change the category and/or move movies into the proper categories year after year.  (sorry, forgot to sign this)  Kbdank71 15:14, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge "future years in film" categories

message: The 2007 films page brings up too many movies.
Shouldnt we keep a sub category link to the movies based either on nationality(american/english/french/indian..)
Or atleast on the basis of the language.
125.18.2.10 11:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sub Categorize 2007 films based on film language
Category talk:2008 films

message: from CFD:
I count 4 keep votes (including mine), and 1 merge vote for the original proposal of merging into :Category:Future_film_releases.  The other merge votes were for merging into :Category:Planned film releases, which is pretty much the same thing.  Anyway you slice it, there isn't a consensus to change, therefore it's a keep.  Kbdank71 18:40, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Proposal to merge :Category:2006_films, :Category:2007_films, and :Category:2008_films into a new category, :Category:Future_film_releases or :Category:Films_planned_for_release_after_2005.
Yes, I know that in the first case, the meaning of the category in terms of the preferred (? allowed) content changes continuously and is, therefore, ambiguous.  Also, I realize that the explicit "post-2005" category will need to be replaced/renamed on a yearly basis.  However, there is precedent for this particular topic to be addressed: :Category:2006 births; in this case, the argument was that one should not have a category named for a specific future event.  This doesn't preclude having a category that is named for a general future event.
My posting this proposal implies that I ...
*Agree to merge. Courtland 04:46, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
*Keep.  I can see removing 2006 births, because there aren't any yet.  But articles already exist for future movies.  Also, we won't have to change the category and/or move movies into the proper categories year after year.  (sorry, forgot to sign this)  Kbdank71 15:14, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge "future years in film" categories

message: * Weapons of Match Destruction / 
Weapons of Match Destruction <P>Mori Riyo (talk) 06:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: ''add new movie title please''
Talk:Víctor Erice

message: I would agree with whoever left the previous comment. This article seems more like a defense of Erice against critics than a neutral recording of factual information. The POV needs to be altered. Bankuroku 00:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article.-- Jreferee 18:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 

message: I've removed the NPOV template, please use  or better yet  for sentences, then detail issues here. This will help address them in a timely manner. - RoyBoy 22:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV removed 
Talk:Timothy J. Keating

message: Text of the article was obtained from U.S. Army site.
Darwinek 18:41, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Original DOB in article (Nov. 5, 1949) had no citation.  Keating appeared before the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee in the first session of the 110th Congress.  The nomination hearing (S. hrg. 110-370, p. 353) gave Keating's DOB as November 16, 1948.  This date also appeared on p. 350 of this hearing.  Since the questionnaires are filled out by the nominees, I think the DOB in the questionnaire can be taken as authoritative. Eam531 (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  DOB 
Talk:Albert von Thurn und Taxis

message: Can someone find his DOB?
FYI, I began this article, and posted the DOB question prior to signing on. Hiberniantears 19:21, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: If you read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) say: "Do not apply an ordinal in an article title to a pretender, i.e., someone who has not reigned". --Hinzel 20:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is true that he is the second Fürst named Albert.  But I know of no source which calls him "Albert II" to distinguish him from his great-grandfather (who is currently called "Albert I" in Wikipedia).  In the case of the heads of mediatized houses, it is much more common for them to be distinguished by their number as head of the house (like English dukes), i.e. "Albert, 12th Prince of Thurn and Taxis".  I suggest that this page be moved to that name, and that the great-grandfather be moved to "Albert, 8th Prince of Thurn and Taxis".  Please note that the members of this family are known even in German as Albert (not Albrecht). Noel S McFerran (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, sounds like a good idea. I'm going to go ahead and move them... Morhange (talk) 06:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to remind that his legal given names are Albert Maria Lamoral Miguel Johannes Gabriel and his surname is Prinz von Thurn und Taxis. In Germany royal titles have been declared void by law, and that much before the person in question was even born. He may be self-styled 12th Prince of Thurn and Taxis (just like I might be), but that doesn't affect his legal name. -134.93.52.128 (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In light of ths, I'd suggest correcting the first line of the article to correspond with this legal name, and the last line of the article, by changing "Fürst" to "Prinz." Phytism (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be all well right legally but unless you happened to be Prince Albert himself, I might nonetheless say that saying you might be "self-styled" 12th Prince of Thurn and Taxis just as well as him, is plain nonsense. No offense. --84.154.58.56 (talk) 09:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with most people above. I moved the article. /Julle (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Name
Talk:Mexico–United States border wall

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 10:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Mexico–United States barrier →  – The term "border wall" has been used much more often than the term "barrier" when referring to this structure. Usage of "border wall" overtook "barrier" sometime in ~15 years ago. Move per WP:COMMONNAME. – Treetoes023 (talk) 03:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 22 July 2023 

message: So this seems to be ramping up and doesn’t seem to be close to ending and maybe we should add a section about it? Biglad14 (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  2024 Texas Border Crisis
Talk:James G. Roche

message: Text of the article was obtained from U.S. Army site.
Darwinek 19:01, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: A very nice start, lots of details, but more of it needs to be in prose paragraph format. LordAmeth 22:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:MILHIST Assessment

message: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/11/transcript-own-the-sky-author.html
Include or not? Hcobb (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  DEW Line article 

message: The first sentence of the article says "James Gerard Roche (born December 16, 1939) is an American politician."  According to the article, Roche has never run for, been elected to, or held public office.  Why is he identified as a politician? 155.7.204.9 (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a politician?
Talk:BAC TSR-2

message: Can we confirm the engine air intake center-body/half-cones were movable, eg by how much and at what speeds ? How was the intake design developed, was it based on something earlier ? - Rod57 (talk) 13:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of the movable air inlet cones 

message: " Its theoretical maximum speed was Mach 3 in level flight at 45,000 "
I am trying to figure out what this might mean. The aircraft was absolutely not capable of reaching that speed, it would melt. Nor are the engine intakes capable of injecting air at anything near this speed. What does this "theoretical maximum" refer to? Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have the source but I would take it to mean the speed at which maximum thrust from the engines can no longer accelerate the aircraft due to drag increasing with the square of the airspeed. I would take 'theoretical' to mean discounting any heat or structural limitations. The F-104 had excess thrust and could exceed its design airspeed limits, a warning system was incorporated to prevent airframe and engine damage. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like it was added here in 2012 by a long-gone user. Perhaps their explanation will help. (It didn't help me!) BilCat (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmmm, the original version right out states "presumably". I'm going to remove that bit, it is wrong. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. BilCat (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does this even mean?
Talk:History of Latin America

message: Along with this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_era#Settlement_of_the_Americas, there is hardly anything in regards to the remaining independent holdouts of Native Americans outside of the modern borders of the United States (Chile, Argentina, inner jungles and highlands of South America), all we hear about are the Aztecs and Incas and how were they conquered by the Spanish, Spanish/Portuguese occupation, and later South American struggles for independence and modern political instability. Take this article for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_colonization_of_the_Americas#Chile Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 04:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very little/too general information on about independent native groups post-Aztec/Incas 
Talk:Elena Mukhina

message: I reccomend moving this because that spelling is used consistently throughout the article. Yelena should of course redirect to Elena. I would have done it myself, but I had trouble with the move function- it tells me I'm not logged in, when I am. Halidecyphon 21:45, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. violet/riga (t) 23:47, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article is clearly POV at the moment and needs attention. violet/riga (t) 23:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: The link to her profile at the FIG goes to Aniol Perez of Spain, not Mukhina. Someone more knowledgeable than I should correct that link. -LtNOWIS (talk) 08:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  FIG link 
Talk:Original Hockey Hall of Fame

message: Hi -- I made all the names in Board of directors section non-links.  The reason was that none of them have articles (except Elliott Frankl, but Elliott Frankl is a deleted page and not likely to be restored).  If any of them get articles, we might as well link to them... but the blue link to Elliott Frankl was really bothering me because we shouldn't be linking to deleted pages.  It seems better to unlink them all than to just unlink him.  Mangojuice 18:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Board of directors unlinked 

message: It appears that much of this article is a copyright violation of the IHHOF.com website.  As per the instructions on Wikipedia:Copyright problems I will revert the last non-copyvio version and list it on the copyvio problems page.  -- JamesTeterenko 05:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is very, very similar to the text from that page.  And I am not just talking about the dates and names.  If you believe that this is not a violation of copyright, please discuss it on the the copyvio problems page for this article.  -- JamesTeterenko 06:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Responded on JohnnyCanuck's talk page.  -- JamesTeterenko 06:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright violations

message: How often does the International Hockey Hall of Fame make inductions? What recent players are inducted? --67.70.149.233 06:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inductions 

message: *I have prodded Paquette's (VicePrez) article. He doesn't even come close to meeting WP:BIO. - pm_shef 21:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Larry Paquette 

message: this is missing a redirect from IHHOF 70.55.84.181 (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: IHHOF
Talk:Rumination disorder

message: This article seems to be a direct copy of
Richard W.M. Jones 23:15, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've written a replacement stub on the /Temp page. Richard W.M. Jones 17:34, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

message: Little seems to be known about this disorder.
Many children who develop this disorder will die from malnourishment, and it may have something to do with lack of a maternal bond. In adults, it is typically seen only in those who are mentally retarded.
I have had the disorder ever since I can remember (and I am obviously not mentally retarded). I may have had it from birth, or it may have developed around the age of six. It feels so natural that it very difficult to stop (I've had no success). There's a sense of not really having eating without regurgitating afterwards to fully savor it. Some psychologists call this "self-stimulation," and there certainly is a certain sense of reward to savoring a meal, since I can't seem to do this when the food is outside of me. 
Food outside of me causes me a kind of separation anxiety; I want to overcome that as quickly as possible. Once it's inside me, I can comfortably enjoy it. Not surprisingly, I have suffered from a few personality disorders, bulimia, depression, etc. I'm very inwardly directed, have some narcissistic tendencies -- and clearly there is a relationship here between rumination disorder and directing my energies to the inside vs. the outside of myself.
I am  also a man with this condition / eating disorder. I was only made aware of it name in adulthood. There seem to be no resources available to manage the condition though i know from experience some foods aggravate it more than others."It Is Now" 21:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Adult Male With Rumination Disorder
Talk:Gore (road)

message: In the UK, gores are known as noses (the meanings of the two words are identical). Chevrons are applied to these all across Europe. The article previously only discussed the US and Canada, so I've updated the article to reflect the situation in Europe. I'm sure Asia and Australia could also both chime in, so it could still do with some work. Kookas (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: On pages this short, I think it's typical to just leave them merged together. Maybe it should be a little more clear that there's more than one meaning, though. --Twinxor 07:32, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Gore already has a disambiguation page. This is Gore (road), so this alternate meaning is out of place.  NickelShoe 19:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  April 2016 edit 

message: Both "gore point" and "gore zone" should redirect to this page.  I don't know how to set up a redirection, or I'd try to do it myself. 68.7.76.17 (talk) 23:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirections to this page 

message: I think this page should be reworked as a gore is a triangular piece of land, of which the use of the term in relation to three way junctions derive. Please ss Kensungton Gore and Pyrgo Park in this respect. Let's make this into a decent page. Leutha (talk) 13:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Rework page

message: The article twice uses the word "theatrical", and twice (once in a caption) the word "theoretical", all to refer to a painted-on rather than physical thing. I suspect that "theatrical" is correct throughout, as it's appropriate for a piece of stage scenery. But I can't be sure. The cited sources don't help, they use neither. Maproom (talk) 22:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theatrical/Theoretical
Talk:Third Cambridge Catalogue of Radio Sources

message: Worth mentionning 3C Revised (3CR) - this was the preferred listing catalogue for Northern sources, certainly up to the early 70s. Also the fact (all this next from memory) that the change of frequency of the local ITV transmiter was held up for 2 years to eanble the survey to finish (the radio frequency dedicated for Radio Astronomy being 179MHz, not 150MHz Linuxlad 23:41, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 3CR

message: 3C is a Freeview Digital Radio channel too if someone wants to fix that in... Cuahl 02:38, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freeview/Digital Radio 

message: Is it physics? Well it is if cosmology is - the source counts derived from 2C and 3C were important to the argument between Ryle and Hoyle over Big Bang v Steady State. As it happens 1) 2C low-power sources were 'confused' something rotten, hence the early move to 3C and 3CR, and 2) the argument was largely settled by discovery of the 3K backround radiation... Bob aka Linuxlad (talk) 11:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Physics
Talk:Ned's Atomic Dustbin

message: Anyone care to update the article with the current (circa Hibernation) lineup? adavidw 05:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent! Thanks. adavidw 07:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Further to this, "Ned's Atomic Dustbin reformed with a different line up in 2000" could do with some elaboration. At the moment, that line reads as if none of the original members was involved: I assume that some of the original members were involved - would someone who knows the line up for this era like to add names?  Dom Kaos (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lineup 

message: Really?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.159.128.21 (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I was rather surprised to see them lumped in with that movement. Much as I liked Slowdive, I don't recall any moshing at their gigs! Until such time as anyone can find some reliable source that suggests Ned's were shoegazers, I'll remove that. Longwayround (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shoegaze? 
Talk:Zurich Airport

message: thumb|Two Swiss International Air Lines in Zurich Airport at Terminal A
Can somebody explain to me why this picture is of any use to the article? I now only see the classical tandem starting an edit war without any explanation what is so special about the picture. Especially I like to know what it offers more than the other two-Swiss-plane picture. 
The Banner talk 21:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: As there are no arguments given to keep that picture, I assume that it can be removed. The Banner talk 20:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevant picture 

message: Airines: Croatia Ailines flights to Split and Pula move from seasonal to year round.
Source: https://aviation.direct/ab-pula-und-split-croatia-airlines-baut-zuerich-praesenz-aus 81.200.197.164 (talk) 13:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Source is okay, so  The Banner talk 14:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2022 

message: ADD: service by Brussels Airlines to Brussels, begins 27 March 2022. SOURCE: https://www.aeroroutes.com/eng/221109-snns23sh
ADD: service by Chair to Fuerteventura, begins 31 March 2022. SOURCE: https://www.aeroroutes.com/eng/221104-gmns23 ZRHrwy14 (talk) 20:53, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. MadGuy7023 (talk) 11:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2022