lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Alicia Silverstone

message: Just want to point out that WP:BLPLEAD states:
and
LK (talk) 01:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead and lead sentence 

message: If Silverstone's parents were both British citizens, then unless she has since renounced it, she is also a British citizen, no matter where she was born.  
When Clueless came out she was on a UK TV interview programme where she mentioned that she was actually in fact British and not American.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.10.248 (talk) 11:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationality 

message: ;The following has been ported over and combined from Ronz's and Tenebrae's talk pages as background for today's major edits, and probably should have taken place here centrally anyway.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The lede should summarize and introduce, identifying why she's notable. She's done a lot of work, but she doesn't seem to get much press or other coverage beyond initial publicity campaigns. Disputes over what should belong in the lede have been a huge problem with article for a long time. Quality references are scarce, especially anything written from a historical context. I'm happy to help you, but I'm mostly just keeping an eye on the article so we don't backslide with the latest publicity campaign or controversy. --Ronz (talk) 02:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Overall, I think the edits by the ip are an improvement. The ip contacted me (User_talk:Ronz#Alicia_Silverstone), and I contacted Davey2010 (User_talk:Davey2010#Alicia_Silverstone). Could you take another look? --Ronz (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Happy to leave it up you, Ronz. I saw he was edit-warring and making unexplained major changes, so I thought it prudent to pull back on them until they could be discussed, as is happening now. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Today's edits
Talk:Notebook processor

message: The following was moved from the article page Weaponofmassinstruction 06:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

message: *  Notebook processor → mobile processor – more common name, more generic, and not linked to notebook (originally a type of stationery) —Mulad (talk) June 30, 2005 16:51 (UTC)
*Oppose. In my limited experience, I've always heard it called a notebook processor, and it's hard to support moving an article to a title that's not even mentioned in the article. I'm not sure I understand why "not linked to notebook" is a reason to move the page. I'm open to changing my vote though. — Knowledge Seeker দ 1 July 2005 02:56 (UTC)
*Support if moved to mobile computing microprocessor or portable computing CPU or mobile computing CPU or portable computing microprocessor 67.68.64.213 2 July 2005 00:10 (UTC)
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved.  I think the name is perhaps a better name but it is probably best to go via the WP:DA route.  violet/riga (t) 19:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move
Talk:Marine reserve

message: I added the statistic because it is important for people to know how little Marine reserves have been taken into account. Hupacheco (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: what are the differents between marine park and marine reserve ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.102.97.224  (talk • contribs) 13 February 2005
:There is a difference in New Zealand.  A marine reserve has a higher protection than a marine park. Alan Liefting 03:48, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Difference to marine parks

message: Hupacheco (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a hatnote linking to Marine Forces Reserve. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Locations

message: Hi there, I have deleted 1) the table titled, "Scale of movement (km) of coral reef and coastal pelagic fish species" in the Design section and 2) the section By-country or territory as they are both much too specific and unesccessary for a Wikipedia entry in line with the section on excessive lists in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.
1) The fish dispersal ranges scientists would consider in marine reserve construction would vary from region to region, and the paragraph beginning with "Movement patterns..." captures some nice examples of the differences between migration of species (e.g.: tuna vs damselfishes).
2) It would be beyond the scope of Wikipedia to list marine reserves in every country/territory. One could modify this section to make it a short list of notable marne reserves, although care would be needed to identify marine reserves and not MPAs for the list. The MPA vs marine reserves vs marine parks difference needs clearer distinction with good citations on Wikipedia.
Thank you! TatjanaBaleta (talk) 09:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rationale for content deletion: fish table & by-country section
Talk:Mount Tarawera

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Inside the Tarawera rift.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 21, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-10-21. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng  {chat} 16:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Inside the Tarawera rift.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 
Talk:Mount Tasman

message: - http://www.alpineguides.co.nz/programs/tasman.htm
 - http://climbnz.org.nz/nz/si/main-divide-of-the-southern-alps/mt-tasman
 - http://www.alpinerecreation.com/mttasman.html
 - http://www.summitpost.org/mount-tasman/150454
 - http://www.roughguides.com/destinations/australasia/new-zealand/central-south-island/mackenzie-country/aorakimount-cook/
Roue2 (talk) 09:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Information to get us started

message: What was wrong with the category edit that you reverted? Schwede66 14:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category
Talk:Ben Macdhui (Eastern Cape)

message: Is Ben Macdhui really the highest peak in the Eastern Cape? What about KwaDuma, located at approximately ? The Trig Survey map (3028AC) has it at 3019m. Or is it disqualified because it's on the Lesotho border? (And it is exactly on the border.) - htonl (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highest in the Eastern Cape? 
Talk:Mount Meru (Tanzania)

message: To add to the article: the etymology of the name "Meru." 173.88.241.33 (talk) 05:33, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: the Hare Krishnas have a "Mount Meru" according to the cosmology described in their sacred scripture, Srimad-Bhagavatam. On one of their sites when I pointed out there is a Mt Meru near Nairobi in Tanzania boy oh boy did the proverbial hit the fan! They have a general loathing of western acadamia and very little respect for universities, encyclopedias and other "official" sources of information. I found it quite amusing that they were so offended by the suggestion that their sacred mountain could be in Africa - but I think it is worth mentioning here as a possible etymological source for the name. Btw I have no idea what Meru means in Sanskrit or Swahili. Wokepedian (talk) 06:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fwiw, goo translate doesn't give a result for Swahili Meru. Well... it does. "Meru". Great help, thanks for that, goo. Wokepedian (talk) 13:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: To add to article
Talk:Mount Greylock

message: Having more-or-less completed extensive and very carefully sourced re-doing of the articles on the Taconic Mountains, and Mount Everett and Mount Equinox,  I've just made some moderately extensive edits to first few segments of article. Because the Greylock article is more extensive & developed at present, I doubt I'll do as much work here as on the aforementioned articles. A number of source citations in the Greylock article are dead links. I've added (so far) only one source and what should be a stable (?) link. In edits, I'm following idea "remove needless words." For example, X "is located in Y," changes to "X is in" Y. One "needless word" eliminated. I will probably continue with similar work on this article & may add additional sources. (No luck with limited efforts to revive dead citations.)
32.221.207.102 (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: July 2023 edits etc

message: As of this moment, I've only glanced through the book (in reference list currently). Probably a very extensive, useful and reliable source for this article. I've very heavily edited this article, especially up to but not really including segment headed "History," as of the moment. I've added about a dozen sources. Current count is 72 references. Am guessing 20 or more are dead links at present and mostly not otherwise informative.
32.221.207.102 (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: 1980s BNR book, etc
Talk:Guadalupe Peak

message: Climbing Guadalupe Peak should only be done if you are in good physical condition.  The Park Service considers this to be a strenuous hike and would only be considered easy by veteran mountain climbers.  I've been up there twice myself.  For an easy hike, try McKittrick Canyon instead. H2O 00:43, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Texasbob---you should look at Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest and policy on external links to see why your link is inappropriate and will continue to be deleted. -- Spireguy 21:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of texasbob.com link

message: The trail is stinky? I love Wikipedia! :-)--TDKehoe (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Stinky trail?

message: : No offense intended, but I'm not sure I see what that blog post adds to the article. I've reverted the change for now; I can see that you're a constructive editor, and I'm open to being convinced that that link has a place here, if you care to advance an argument, but right now I don't see what's particularly noteworthy about that post.-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, it is the nature of a collaborative editing that our work is (thankfully) checked by others. Your opinion matters and thanks for the constructive feedback and explanation. I had never heard of this peak till that article, although it is humorous, I learned more in 60 seconds about this Texas peak then before. Fotaun (talk) 12:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: External link to Austin360.com blog
Talk:Mount Magazine

message: how was it formed?  what is its history?  this article needs improvements.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.158.220 (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvements 

message: Locally, nobody considers Mount Magazine to be in the Ouachitas.  See, it's cut off from them by the Petit Jean River Valley.  It was formed along with the Ozarks but it's physically separate so really it is a standalone mountain.  69.29.99.218 (talk) 03:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The mountain does stand relatively alone, but according to the Arkansas state geological survey, Mt Magazine is a part of the Ouachita Mountains. In the references of the article there is a link to the information. —catsmoke talk 09:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: It's not in the Ouachitas
Talk:Old Rag Mountain

message: 3,291 or 3,284 feet?  The article says both, but it can only be one or the other.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.34.123 (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elevation 

message: The recreation section mentions 3 parking areas: at the beginning of the paragraph a lot located at the end of "County Route 601" is mentioned, later it is noted that the "Old Rag" parking area was closed in 2010 and that the only parking is now at "the lower field parking area".  Is the lot at the end of County Route 601 the same as the lower field lot? Or is it same lot as the now closed Old Rag lot?
If the Route 601 lot is the same as the still open lower field lot, I suggest that just after the sentence that currently mentions the Route 601 parking area at the beginning of the paragraph something like this is added. "As of 2012 this lower lot at the end of Route 601 is the closest to the trailhead. The  Old Rag parking lot located a half mile closer was closed in 2010." (or closed in 2010 due to....?.) If the Route 601 is instead the same as the now closed Old Rag lot, similar clarifying changes should be made. First give the location of the lower field lot at the beginning of the paragraph then note the closure of the Old Rag lot in the next sentence. In either case, the portion should be removed that currently reads, "The Fire Road then descends 2.5 miles (4.0 km) to the Old Rag parking area . This pleasantly convenient parking area was closed in 2010. All parking is now limited to the lower field parking area adding a half mile walk on asphalt." In addition to being confusing, the excessive adjectives in this portion are opinion and do not belong in an encyclopedia. 
I can't make these changes without knowing which lot is being referred to at the end of route 601. If anyone is familiar with this area, please reply or clarify this section. Also, I came to this article looking for information on a natural staircase formation located on Old Rag Mountain (other wiki articles direct here for information on this natural formation). If anyone has any information or pictures this would be a great addition to this article. Swhitt21 (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parking Confusion in Recreation Section 

message: K2chris1983 (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  References
Talk:Mount Rogers

message: The photo that is posted is not of Mt Rogers.  Mt Rogers has a gentle, forested summit, not a bare, rocky one.  The photo looks like one of the rock outcroppings that are at least a mile from the summit.  Could somebody substitute a photo that is less misleading? 128.173.49.45 (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I reworked the uncited paragraph about the effects of global warming on the forests of Mount Rogers into a discussion of the spruce-fir forests of Mount Rogers and the reasons for their decline (I could find no reliable sources that mentioned recent climate changes affecting the forests; the decline is mostly attributed to the balsam woolly adelgid). I also changed the name of the section from Global Warming Controversy to Spruce-Fir Forests. Although as I worked on it, it ended up being more concerned with the red spruce-fraser fir forests in general, rather than Mount Rogers itself. There is currently a poor article for Fir and spruce forests, so maybe we could clean that up and work some of this info into it. SheepNotGoats (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I just reverted 's move of this article to Mount Rogers (Virginia), per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Let's discuss whether this article is the primary topic: that is, whether it is "highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term".
The evidence that this is a primary topic includes:
* Google Books search of "Mount Rogers" Virginia yields 14,000 results, while "Mount Rogers" Australia yields 2,870 results.
* Google Scholar search of "Mount Rogers" Virginia yields 1,310 results, while "Mount Rogers" Australia yields 323 results.
* Wikipedia traffic over the last 90 days: 87 daily active readers for Virginia, 2 for Australia
I think these data show that the peak in Virginia is much more likely than the peak in Australia to be the topic sought in searches. What do other editors think? —hike395 (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article as primary topic
Talk:Mount Walter (New Mexico)

message: It's more consistent with usual methods of listing mountains if we clarify that this summit, while having a name, is not even close to being a separate peak by the local standard (300 foot prominence). -- Spireguy 03:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor peak 

message: I changed the easiest route to Bull-of-the-Woods. This might be a matter of opinion, but it is definitely a much lower-angle route, all on trail, even if it is a bit longer than the Williams Lake route. -- Spireguy 03:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Easiest route
Talk:Utah Constitutional Amendment 3

message: I do not find this notable enough to put at the end of the page, but the updated statistics are from Yahoo! News: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=index&cid=2288&inc=i_g_ut_1_48530_1.shtml .
Iamunknown (Talk) 08:33, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation 

message: We have a page on a legal debate here without any link to the actual text of the amendment.  Where is it - surely it is online somewhere?
::This article lacks sources and the claims made in the article should be linked to verifable sources. Please include sources for all claims made in this article especially in the controversy section. Whenever an article of a controversial nature is included in Wikipedia the article should conform to Wikipedia's Reliability, Verifiability, and NPOV policy. Inclusion of sources for controversial information negate the need to remove the information as a result of it being controversial. Edward Lalone 05:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actual amendment text
Wikipedia talk:Assume good faith

message: let's do it empathetic style!!♥️🙏🏻💯😁💵💰 2600:6C40:1200:FAF:E274:398B:FD2B:BD3A (talk) 02:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Empathy 

message: I just found out that 294 characters for Copyright in South Korea were deleted from Literature document. I think the content is reliable enough because the source was accurately indicated. Bunsik (talk) 13:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that the explanation for the revert is not "copyright" but "unsourced." Take a look at WP:YANARS. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking for your opinion on why I deleted my edit 

message: There is a discussion and dispute regarding addressing a talk page post by an ip that may or may not be trolling or a legitimate request. Your input at User talk:Thinker78#Chemtrails is requested; cordial, objective input is welcome. I have to point out that I am not forum shopping. If I don't publicize the discussion in a few different relevant venues I don't get much general uninvolved community input, which is desirable to provide additional insights instead of only localized discussion which may not even properly clarify things. Per WP:SEEKHELP, 
  Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You've got three admins giving you advice and you have been told you'll be blocked if you continue enabling trolls. So that's really the end of it. If you think all the admins are wrong you probably need to go to WP:AN. Bon courage (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Bon courage The end of it will be determined by the community not you, an involved editor who was using uncivil language. Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 02:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The community has spoken (I now count three admins and four non-admins). It's just you are forum shopping rather than WP:HEARing the message. My advice is to drop this and do something more gainful, as the road you are on is unlikely to lead to a good place. Bon courage (talk) 02:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Quite apart from anything else, this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Assume good faith page. So an editor raising a conduct grievance here is off-topic & disruptive. Suggest close. Bon courage (talk) 04:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for input regarding assuming good faith in a talk page dispute
Talk:Streptococcus salivarius

message: I've reverted material copied from http://microbewiki.kenyon.edu/index.php/Streptococcus_salivarius  because of the copyright notice (http://microbewiki.kenyon.edu/index.php?title=Streptococcus_salivarius&action=history) indicating personal use only.  Note that the material on the microbewiki was added before the material was added here based on comparin article histories. -- Whpq (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright Violation
Talk:Mo'orea

message: Former name of Moorea:  I've read a lot, and never seen it spelled "Aimeho", although I have seen it spelled "Eimeo" and "Aiméo".  Accordingly, I changed it to Aimeo.  TShilo12 09:34, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Can someone render "Conseil du Scoutisme polynésien" and "Be Prepared", the Scout Motto, into Tahitian? Thanks! Chris 14:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Conseil du Scoutisme polynésien]]

message: I have looked at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_by_language . It would appear that there are no templates like ,  for Tahitian. :( Chris 06:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: User ty

message: A Microsoft application (part of Office 15) that was recently leaked is codenamed Moorea.--88.73.40.12 (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Microsoft app 

message: The pronunciation we have in this article is garbage. It means nothing unless the reader has the Merriam-Webster pronunciation key before him, and that's nowhere to be seen in the article. I also suspect it is an inadequate rendering anyway, as I think there's a glottal stop between the two O's. I believe the actual pronunciation is closer to [moʔoˈrea]. Can anyone confirm this?Kelisi (talk) 06:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: This needs an etymology section. Why did it cease to be called Eimeo? KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology
Talk:Claim in bankruptcy

message: This probably refers to US bankruptcy law - and if so - the article needs to make this clear. This article certainly does not cover the position in the United Kingdom. If we are trying to have an encylopdic entry we need to set out what it is that we're covering. See also Bankruptcy. Brookie 09:59, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Which jusrisdiction is this referring to?
Category talk:Generic top-level domains

message: Do you organise your files by which ones were created by companies, and which ones were created by non-profit organisations? No. Does anyone? No. Then why is the Internet organised this way?
It has ended up being practically a flat address space with the TLDs not providing any useful categorisation of sites or information about the subject of a site
A much more logical domain system would be something similar to the system for newsgroups, where the groups are organised into a logical hierarchy of categories.
Jibjibjib 06:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The TLD organisation is not very useful
Talk:Ephraim Kishon

message: Author and satirist Ephraim Kishon passed away late Saturday night at the age of 80 (30.jan.2005) 80.98.130.228 10:23, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The number one all-time director!
If he wasn't an Israeli and would of been in Hollywood he would be greater han Speilberg.
Usually I don't watch old movies but he is just a genious!
In every movie he made that I watched I cried, laughed, freaked out and felt every emotion possible.
Tribute to Ephraim Kishon! --Aviv Maliniak 17:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  You are #1 

message: "he still felt he was getting negative treatment from the Israeli media due to the fact he was rather right wing in his political views"
So Kishon thought of himself as "rather right wing"? Or is it the WP writer who believes this?
Is "rather right wing" like saying "rather Trotzkyist", or "rather Trumpist"? Or don't we care and just use a lazy cop-out phrase? 2A02:AA1:1149:651A:D518:ECC0:7E6B:AC8A (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "rather right wing"
Talk:Disk quota

message: What is lacking in this article that defines it as a stub? --Kbolino 10:37, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)