lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Plymouth, Wisconsin

message: I just cleaned up this article and would like to provide the reasoning for anyone interested.  The information I deleted out of this article directly contradicts the Wikipedia guidelines about advertising (Please see WP:NOT#SOAPBOX).  I have some of the information from that guideline posted here: 
Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:
Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. 
Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. 
Advertising. Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) for guidelines on corporate notability. 
If you are going to post things on Wikipedia please either make sure that the content is appropriate for the article or discuss the changes you wish to make on the Discussion page and get other Wikipedia contributors opinions. Eric 23:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Cleanup 

message: I started an article about Bill B. Bruhy. Bruhy served in the Wisconsin State Assembly in 1973. This would make him notable. He also served as Mayor of Plymouth, Wisconsin from 1966 until his death from cancer in 1977. Bill B. Bruhy was a real person not a cartoon character. Thank you-RFD (talk) 10:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bill B. Bruhy
Talk:Apache Geronimo

message: A big project like this deserves a talk page, so I'm just going to throw out a few ideas for the article.  Time permitting, I hope I might be able to follow up on some myself, but other contributers might be more qualified to do so.
* The original falling out of a number of JBoss developers that led to Geronimo is probably worth mentioning, and might shed some light on some of the philosophical differences between Geronimo and JBoss.
* The rise and... buyout of Gluecode should also be mentioned in its proper context here, since IBM's involvement is closely linked to their taking over of Gluecode.
* Those are the big two things I think this article could use, although if someone has anything profound to say about the commoditisation of the application server market with the emergence of products like Gerominio changing the playing field for established products like WebSphere (non-CE) and WebLogic, that would be cool to have too.
--Marlow4 21:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:1,2-Bis(diphenylphosphino)ethane

message: I was looking around for some of the chelating diphosphines that I could think of, there are several missing (my first guess was DPPP).  Might it be worth to either create a 'diphosphine category' (What would be an appropriate name), or by moving DPPE to a 'diphosphine page' and linking the others towards that?? --Dirk Beetstra 21:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Garab Dorje

message: Given that this article describes Garab Dorje as at least partly historical, it seems necessary that it should include some references. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 21:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I put in the one ref I knew of; I'll try to find more. Thank you! Zero sharp 22:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources
Talk:OpenText Together

message: "Together is a product from Borland that integrates its Delphi set of products in to the Microsoft .NET framework."
:this statement is just crap. Together has nothing to do with Delphi nor .NET. It is a superior UML tool, that is integrated in Eclipse, Visual Studio.NET, Borland Developer Studio (Delphi, C# Builder, C++Builder). But it definitely does not integrate Delphi with .NET...
Similarly, the phrase "which originally had its roots in JBuilder" is incorrect. Borland bought TogetherSoft in January 2003. Previously, the Together software was available from "Object International Software Ltd." (see note on Peter Coad's page under Career).  - K (talk) 09:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament

message: Added Wikipedia "See also" links to other Anglican devotional societies. Javasmith 22:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Link
Talk:Society of the Holy Cross

message: Added Wikipedia "See also" links to other Anglican devotional societies. Javasmith 22:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: See also

message: I undid an edit by an anonymous user, which deleted most of the list of bishops, which was done without explanation. Keble Hall (talk) 12:54, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bishops
Talk:Society of King Charles the Martyr

message: Added Wikipedia "See also" links to other Anglican devotional societies. Javasmith 22:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: See also

message: User Backnumber1662 may not like the idea of saints, but that is no reason to muck up an article. Fixed some edits. Morgaledth 02:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Saints

message: What is meant by the term "Catholic" as applied to this society?  Some may think it means it is affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church but that is apparently not the case.  -- Beland 21:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "Catholic" must be very carefully handled. The Church of England is the only Catholic Church in England, according to both its own formularies, and English Law. This must be respected. So too, however, must the desire of another denomination to be known as the "Roman Catholic" Church in England. Timothy Titus 12:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems odd that a patron of this Anglican society, Lord Nicholas Windsor has been reputedly received into the Church of Rome. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Catholic" 

message: This seems to be out of date. Both the Alternative Service Book and Common Worship have restored him to the calendar. Peter jackson (talk) 10:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not out of date, since the Feast of Saint Charles, King and Martyr (which is likely how it would be worded) is still excluded from the BCP. The SKCM still lists having it added and universally recognized as one of their goals. But yes, you're right that it needs to be made clearer in the article that the feast has been added to the ASB and CW. I'll do that. Morgaledh (talk) 01:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canonization 

message: Wow, what a mess the section on the American Region was (see the history)! It looked like it was copied and pasted from a minutes report, and listed every single officer and meeting, often multiple times. I streamlined it and fixed the notes in that section, and added an infobox to the article. Morgaledh (talk) 01:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Cleanup 

message: I've removed the reference in the article to Charles having been canonised. Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Formerip (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sainthood 
Talk:Samad Vurgun

message: I'm not sure about the birthdate, which varies in some sources. Brand 22:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Protes'tant Conference

message: I give my approval to the current revised page on the "Protes'tant Conference." I ask that it not be reverted, for it is not vandalism.--192.160.64.49 22:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

message: Ought to explain that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.94.8.139 (talk • contribs) on 15:13, 8 May 2006
*Explain what? The apostrophe?  They probably chose to use it int he name to make it identifiable from the word "protestant," which is something else entirely.--Lendorien 22:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  why the hyphen?
Talk:Rupert and the Frog Song

message: Looks like this page could do with a bit of proofreading. I'd do it myself if I had a bit more time. mh. 22:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: This article contradicts itself; the main text lists two directors, the sidebar only one.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.191.181 (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  how many directors?
Talk:Wrist spin

message: How should this page be integrated or harmonized with the leg spin page? There is a lot of overlap between the terms leg spin and wrist spin. But they are not the same. Wrist spin encompasses both conventional leg spin and the left handed equivalent - the chinaman. Moreover wrist spin is not the only way to bowl leg spin. Leg breaks can be bowled with finger spin - the middle and index fingers doing most of the work in imparting spin.
This page refers to finger spin turning the ball in the opposite direction to wrist spin. Whilst this is true for the stock deliveries of wrist and finger spin bowlers it is not true for their variations. It also refers to wrist spin releasing the ball from the back of the hand. This is true for the googly, but not for a leg break, which comes out of the front of the hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David.castell (talk • contribs) 2 May 2006 (UTC)
:Who wrote this? - many things are wrong with this post:
:1) Wrist Spin is the ONLY way to bowl Leg Spin. How many Leg spinners have there been in the histroy of cricket that don't bowl with the back of the hand facing the batsmen? This is the true definition of wrist spin - whereby the wrist does most of the action not the fingers, hence Wrist Spin compared to Finger Spin.
:2) "This page refers to finger spin turning the ball in the opposite direction to wrist spin." - No, this page refers to Wrist Spin, hence it is called Wrist Spin.
:3) "It also refers to wrist spin releasing the ball from the back of the hand. This is true for the googly, but not for a leg break, which comes out of the front of the hand." - This statement again is completely wrong. Both the Leg Break and the Googly are bowled out the back of the hand. It is the grip and/or Wrist position that imparts the differing spin. No leg spin bowler bowls the ball out of the front of the hand like a seamer, for example. It is always out the back of the hand with the palm facing away from the batsman.
:I think that you are confused. If you can tell me of a leg spin bowler (or chinaman for that matter) that plays regular top level cricket and bowls his/her stock ball with the palm of his/her hand facing the batsman it would be much appriciated. Until then, don't post discussions on matters you have little to no knowledge of. Also, sign your posts, it helps. Weststigersbob 10:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Leg spin

message: I'm trying to add notable information but the vandalbot keeps reverting before I can finish  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.1.230.218 (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This cricket article does not need discussions of gay slurs. It is off topic, if it is even true. LizardJr8 (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  can someone block the vandalbot please?
Talk:Project West Ford

message: Why is the inclination of remaining debris scattered globally at the stuffinspace link, if there were only 2 specific inclinations (only 9 degrees apart) in the original launch?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.32.96 (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: because variations in drag eventually result in variations in altitude, and then nodal precession happens relatively more quickly at the relatively lower altitude. 135.180.194.177 (talk) 22:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Jan 2018

message: Why is it that the article for this page is the exact same text as the one from this:
http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=516
?
69.249.146.101 22:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it was copy/pasted from there... Even the pictures... --Falcorian (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Сраные пендосы  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.255.165.56 (talk) 
13:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Potty mouth. 86.184.196.105 (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: May 2006

message: What substance keeps the clumps together? 
Will the binding component disintegrate over time ? 
Glue ? Napalm ? 51.174.226.245 (talk) 12:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it's just that all the needles are on a similar orbit, so they travel around together. --Falcorian (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I belive it is spot wielding, as this video suggests.  - 56independent (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  What keeps the clumps together ?  

message: Not anymore!  I gave it a B-class.  Nicely sourced and chock full of information.  Thank you. --Neopeius (talk) 05:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A stub? 

message: The article is currently inconsistent, when it should consistently use one form or the other. If both are correct, one form should be chosen for the article, and the other should be noted in the "also known as" section at the top. 108.246.204.20 (talk) 05:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project West Ford or Project Westford? 

message: 😩😩😩 212.219.116.90 (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is very nice 

message: The article says nothing about whether the 8 MHz radio tests made successful use of this artificial ionosphere or not. Does anyone know? 
Thanks Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 04:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did it work?
Talk:List of Augustae

message: The photograph of the sculpture is obviously of the wrong woman.  Apparently, that photograph is of a bust in the Louvre of Augustus's sister, Octavia.  
Octavia.JPG  (15KB, MIME type: image/jpeg)
octavia, sister of augustus, wife of mark antony, louvre, paris
When you click on the jpeg to enlarge it, the information above is what you get.  Does somebody have or can obtain a photo of Augustus' wife, Livia for this entry?   Stevenmitchell 17:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On Livia article, the caption to this page says "Once thought to be Octavia Minor, now identified as Livia, in Egyptian basalt."--Panairjdde 20:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The Fausta page mentions that she was made Augusta, but isn't listed here. Is there a reason for this, or is it just a simple oversight? —Donal Fellows (talk) 11:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  List completeness? 
Talk:Fairway

message: According to the Springfield article, this is a common US place name and should have a disambiguation page like Oak Grove, Midway, and Springfield.Rt66lt 22:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is reasonable. All the Golf course articles that linked to Fairway now link to Golf course#Fairway and rough so this disambiguation page could be moved back. Peter Horn User talk 15:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This may require a "merge", as a move back does not now appear to be possible. Peter Horn User talk 15:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redeployment
Talk:Haynes–Shockley experiment

message: This page is mostly in Russian ? Corrigann 22:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is in Slovenian. I thought I would have enough time to make a proper translation but it will have to wait for a week or two more. Don't worry, I didn't forget I have to translate it. But when it's done, I would appreciate some copyediting, since I am not sure whether such a detailed analysis is suitable for WP. And if anyone can find who Haynes is... --Tone 13:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

message: Similar situation to Diffusion current#Derivation.
Could whoever wrote the article please clarify some of the less-obvious symbols (p, n, μ etc )? I tried fixing some of the obvious notation (E, J, Φ etc.) and added links, though by all means correct anything I could have possibly done wrong. Thanks for clarification. =) F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 07:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Tagged article for nomenc. clarification

message: Many equations are missing a factor of charge or charge-1 to have their units correct, for example, in the equation for number density it should be:
Is written without the charge:
16:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unit error
Talk:Tupolev

message: I must say this pic is really precise in showing the headquarter!! So precise that I'd suggest removing it, or at least exchanging it with a better one. FMB 12:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headquarter pic 

message: http://www.tupolev.ru/English/Picture.asp?PubID=1189
http://www.tupolev.ru/Russian/Picture.asp?PubID=501
http://www.tupolev.ru/images/Pictures/map2.jpg
http://www.tupolev.ru/images/Pictures/About/zhukovskiy_map_b.jpg
http://www.tupolev.ru/Russian/Picture.asp?PubID=3726
WhisperToMe (talk) 04:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Stuff to archive
Talk:Excelsior, Minnesota

message: Excelsior was visited by the Rolling Stones during an early US tour by the band. Mick Jagger was sick, and got medicine at Brown's Drug store, which was once on Water Street. While standing in line he met "Mr. Jimmy", a local character, and the incident was immortalized in the song "You Can't Always Get What You Want". Jagger told this story during a Rolling Stone interview, confirming speculation by those who witnessed the incident. In the song, the town is called "Chelsea", not "Excelsior".Marhault 23:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Particle beam

message: Could a magnetic field disrupt a particle beam passing through it?
Is "Partical Cannon" a misspelling or the actual name from the game? --165.95.12.115 23:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

message: This sentence doesn't make any sense. Is somebody trying to mess with my head?
"This beam weapon is undoubtedly also very hard not to notice; particles travelling near the speed of light are not usually seen on a battlefield."
Is this trying to say that these weapons probably don't exist yet, even in secret, or that they would be impractical for some reason I'm not understanding? -Toptomcat 13:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What am I missing?  

message: Particle beams do not necessarily have to be made of charged particles, in fact, if all the particles have the same charge, it would be hard to make the beam cohesive, as the particles would repel each other and cause the beam to spread out.
:That is correct. The problem is knowing how to accelerate particles to high speeds without using magnetic fields though. ScienceApe (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charged Particles 

message: Our wikinews states that: "The first particle beam is successfully steered around the Large Hadron Collider accelerator ring at CERN near Geneva, Switzerland.". Shouldn't that be mentioned in the article? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  05:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  News 

message: User Hawkpro1go (talk) edited the main article, adding the following text to the subsection Military, which i moved here into the discussion page:
:Did you realize that what was said is a contradiction in itself? Saying the power needed to project a high-powered beam of this kind surpasses the production capabilities of any standard battlefield powerplant, and then going to say that a Government plan uses the described beam is completely outrageous to be put for public knowledge.
Let me just add that i basically agree on the statement being misleading, beside the fact that this text part describes hypothetical usage (if weapons like this could be built, then...).
Since the Military (or as weapons) section until recently made up a large part of this article (and was already there before recent edits), i was reluctant to remove parts of it. Based on the comment, i will proceed being bold, removing the contradictory statements from the Military subsection, thus shrinking it to an appropiate size in comparison with the other usages (which are much more common and less speculative). BR84 (talk) 13:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on Military section
Talk:Segregation academy

message: Fifteen referenced articles don't exist.  I spent no time following the deletion discussions over the last couple of years, but some of these institutions are still extant and likely notable. To the extent that someone worked on them in the past, it might be worthwhile to see whether there was previously text, what it looked like, and whether the references are sufficient to support them. Conversely, some of these schools appear to have insufficient citations to be on the list.   Rhadow (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no significant deletion of school pages as far as I see. Just clicking through the redlinks, I found that only one of them was previously an article; all others are likely based on WP:REDYES. GreaterPonce665 (TALK)  15:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red-lined articles 

message: While one may not be sympathetic to these schools, this kind of ludicrously biased, poorly written “entry” is perfectly illustrative of why Wikipedia is not taken seriously. 2600:1700:A710:A3B0:C58:5706:E48A:8230 (talk) 23:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you be more specific as to what part of this article is "biased"? Thanks. GreaterPonce665 (TALK)  00:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ludicrous
Talk:United Reformed Church

message: I'm not entirely sure that the link to 'Churches of Christ' actually corresponds to continuing members of the former denomination - can anyone verify?  Sjoh0050 23:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Churches of Christ

message: I would like to see some discussion of where the URC sits within the liberal/conservative debate in the contemporary Church. I was involved in the URC when I was younger, when there was considerable division over these issues, with some churches being very liberal, others rather evangelical. Is this still the case? —Preceding Wikipedia:Signaturesmerymat (talk • contribs) 04:25, 28 March 2007
AFAIK the URC still contains a wide variety of people from Evangelicals to extreme Liberals (of which I am likely to be classed as one) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andylittlejohns (talk • contribs) 14:24, 21 May 2007
Please sign your additions to talk pages using four tildes, as suggested at the top of the edit page - it makes it easier to track where one person has stopped talking and another person has started. Cheers. JonoP 16:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Spectrum"

message: I will add some photographs from the General Assembly soon enough. Remind me if I forget! – Kaihsu 10:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added one. – Kaihsu 11:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photographs

message: Someone chopped off the geographical information about the Synods, probably due to the unwieldiness. I reproduce it here for information. – Kaihsu (talk) 09:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synod 

message: And here is the statement. – Kaihsu (talk) 09:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nature, faith and order statement 

message: In 2011, also the United Reformed Church in United Kingdom allowed the blessing of same-sex unions.
* United Reformed Church:United Reformed Church votes to host same-sex civil partnerships   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.64.255.139 (talk) 12:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  United Reformed Church 

message: In the introduction is says 68, 000, but in the text box it says 75, 000  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.66.18 (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many members are there?