lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Barry Halper

message: I restored a block of text in this section that was removed without explanation.  That these allegations were made is well-documented. The fact that others have challenged Mr. Nash's credibility is also a fact, and both elements ought to be included.  Simply deleting the charges but inserting a counter-argument doesn;t make any sense.  Secondly, user JordanKatz19 added a quotation and two references.  The references, while relevant, did not actually include that quote.  I found the orignal source, cited it, then added a line of text relevant to the two links provided. Anson2995 (talk) 01:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy
Talk:The Jealous Girlfriends

message: It would appear that this band does have some notability, based on a Google search. Most notably, they appear to have been included on the soundtrack of at least one major TV show: www.greysanatomyinsider.com/music/artists/the-jealous-girlfriends.html (which, for some reason, is on the spam blacklist - wtf?) lists two of their songs. More to come, I'm still digging. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, here's a few more links: a couple of interviews, here and here; a review of a gig they played at SXSW here - though it's on Gibson's website  - that also mentions they've had a song on The L Word, a mention of a gig in the New York Times that seems to indicate they've toured nationally - I see mentions of tour dates in LA and elsewhere in Google. And, a short writeup on Billboard.com here. So, I'd have to say this is definitely not speedy material, but it's still kind of close when it comes to evaluating against WP:MUSIC. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability
Talk:Ubora Towers

message: It is important to note that two pages, Ubora Commercial Tower and Ubora Residential Tower, have been merged into this article as as result of discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dubai#Dubai skyscrapers: merger proposals. The associated talk pages were redirected to this talk page, as there was no content aside from project banners. Rai-me 20:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge results
Talk:Ambush of Geary

message: Is this action honestly notable? This sort of thing happens in every war all the time and I see nothing here exceptional enough to deserve an article as opposed to an ambush somewhere else.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: While I'm not the originator of the article, I see it as more like a piece of local history than anything grandiose, given the minor controversy over what happened to the body.  Wikipedia is full of pieces of local color (not just milhist, people write articles about public transit stops and such), and this one is (to me anyway) surprisingly well-documented for an incident of its size. (On the other hand, there seems to be some sort of mystique about the revolution that Americans feel they have to document every little event that happened.  Me, I'm just working through articles in a campaignbox, trying to improve them. I probably would not have created the article, but I'm also not a deletionist.) Magic♪piano 18:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm certainly not going to put up for AfD as I was surprised on the amount of information available.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable?
Wikipedia talk:Don't hope the house will build itself

message: The dialog at the start looks somewhat contrived when compared to WP:INSPECTOR. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 06:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Admitedly, it is.  It was meant to be a counterpoint to it; but it could stand some severe improvement.  Feel free to hack at it.  — Coren (talk) 06:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually you might try footnoting to it, as a credit. Otherwise it's really not clear who wrote it. --Lquilter (talk) 13:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

message: Greetings!  I stumbled across WP:INSPECTOR, and that led me to WP:BUILDER.  While I do get the point of what you're trying to say, and I do think it's important, I worry that this essay is getting away from the spirit of Wikipedia, especially near the end.  Vanity/spam/vandalism/tigers/etc, where the person has an agenda beyond contributing to an encyclopedia article, is one thing.  But I think it's critical that Wikipedians never loose sight of "anyone can edit".  That's where WP:BOLD comes from.  Implying that newcomers have to read a long list of rules before contributing is a barrier to entry that was very consciously avoided (WP:IAR).  I think that it's important that we encourage bold, good-faith attempts to create good pages, even if the creator only lays the first block, or builds a crooked stairwell.  Even if they are unable to build a plumb stairwell.  To continue the already strained analogy, as long as the contributor knows that the stairwell is supposed to be plumb, it's okay if they can't make it plumb themselves.  •  Thoughts?  —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 18:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone can edit 

message: With all due respect, I'd like to suggest that the house metaphor doesn't work with your proposed solution of demolition. You propose demolition because ill-planned or incorrectly built. In houses, of course, poor planning or construction can result in fatal flaws that cannot be corrected and must be built from ground up. However, even in housing, one can often salvage significantly from even poorly-planned or ill-built construction. And in Wikipedia there is actually no need to "destroy", because rebuilding can be done without article deletion. It's certainly fine to take out all bad content & reduce the article to a stub, for instance, which then has the original still in the article history. "Planning" and "building" (article structure?) are insufficient reasons for article deletion, and because they are issues that we deal with in wikipedia articles, they don't clearly map onto any of the sufficient reasons for article deletion. I can't think of any way to tweak it so it works better, but perhaps you can. (Although, perhaps in retrospect you will feel this was ill-conceived from the start. <g> ) --Lquilter (talk) 13:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's allright; this is an essay and inherently an opinion piece— it's neither expected nor necessary that everyone agrees with it.  Indeed, WP:INSPECTOR makes exactly the opposite point.  — Coren [[User Talk:Coren|(talk)] 14:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: analogy not really correct
Talk:Casa de Estudillo

message: *HABS photos in public domain could be uploaded
*NRHP photos for this case are NPS photos, hence in public domain and can be used.
::Added a whole bunch of photos today. howcheng  {chat} 18:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo upload needed

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#:: 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#:: 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#:: 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:Fair representation without bias: 
#:: 
#It is stable.
#:No edit wars etc.: 
#:: 
#It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
#:a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
#:: 
#Overall: 
#:Pass/Fail: 
#:: 
Everything looks good, you pass. Sorry for the month long wait time before review, WP:GAN is horrifyingly backlogged right now. --erachima talk 00:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA review
Talk:Ministry of Defence (Ukraine)

message: I found the picture of its main building 
but somehow was unable to insert it into the infobox. Would somebody fix this? Thank you, Ukrained (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ministry's building 

message: Did Volodymyr Zelensky announce a new Minister of Defense in early September 2023? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: He did, but he isn't approved by the Parliament, yet. Therefore, the current minister is still Reznikov. (Which is actually wrong in the current version). Whoever did it, should take back their entry. Rustem Umierov isn't the Defence Minister yet. Pettylein (talk) 12:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Minister of Defense?
Talk:Richard Lloyd Parry

message: I'm all for blocking self-promotion on Wikipedia, but Sandalwearer's changes remove useful and neutral information. I've restored some of this, while excluding the gushing book reviews.
Bangkokesque (talk) 06:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: He don't understand and can not understand all of the case, condition and the feeling of everyone on Thailand. He must not conduct by telling like everyone in Thailand don't like prime minister Abhisit because Parry is not Thai. He can write and tell everything in truth but don't tell everything for Thai if he don't be Thai he don't feel anyting like Thai people. Please tell the truth not the feeling you never understand Thai people.
You must have an ethics of journalist more.
Don't do like this agian, it's make you disgusting.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.122.220.178 (talk) 10:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard Lloyd Parry, who is abuse Thailand.
Talk:James C. Flood Mansion

message: *HABS photos in public domain available
*The photo in NRHP link is identified as NPS ownership, so is also public domain.  It's a nice photo to use perhaps.
*New photo would help, too.
:Photo added March 2, 2008.  Sufficient for stub? --Sfmammamia (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos and photo uploads needed
Talk:Northcliffe, Toronto

message: Not sure if this is a real neighbourhood of Toronto? It's listed as a neighbourhood of York in the article List of neighbourhoods in Toronto, but it's not in the 'neighbourhoods of Toronto' template. The City of Toronto website (which SUCKS BTW compared to the City of Vancouver site in terms of getting city history and geography etc) doesn't have it on its Neighbourhood page. Anchoress (talk) 06:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Northcliffe, Toronto, I believe, is part of Oakwood-Vaughan, therefore I made the redirect to the larger neighbourhood and the Oakwood-Vaughan article also mentions Northcliffe Blvd. Johnny Au (talk) 16:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You believe? I think that redirect is a bit premature - you've redirected it to an article that also doesn't have any sources. Let's be sure of what we're doing before we delete and redirect. Anchoress (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course.  This article states that it is bounded by Dufferin Street, Rogers Road, Lauder Avenue, and Eglinton Avenue. Oakwood-Vaughan is bounded by Dufferin Street, St. Clair Avenue, Arlington Avenue, Vaughan Road, Winnett Avenue, and Eglinton Avenue. Therefore, Northcliffe, Toronto is definitely within Oakwood-Vaughan.  The former city of York no longer exists, therefore, all neighbourhood boundaries are set by the City of Toronto. This means that Oakwood-Vaughan is an officially recognized neighbourhood, but not Northcliffe, which is recognized by the former city of York. This is the same reason why Humewood-Cedarvale is an officially recognized neighbourhood in Toronto, rather than Humewood and Cedarvale as separate neighbourhoods in the former city of York. Johnny Au (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Status as official neighbourhood
Talk:Sulfinoalanine decarboxylase

message: This article appears to be at odds with the other articles on taurine biosynthesis. Is cysteic acid an additional substrate, or is it an intermediate that's missing from the diagram? --Ipatrol (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The contradiction was due to a wrong reference to cysteic acid, where it should have been cysteine sulfinic acid. The confusion arises because cysteic acid and cysteine sulfinic acid are both on pathways leading to taurine. However, cysteic acid is decarboxylated directly into taurine (see here). Marsipan (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 02:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction
Talk:Automotive thermoelectric generator

message: Looks to me like most of this article is repeating what's in thermoelectric generator and it could be merged as a subsection of that article. The Operation principles and Efficiency sections are repeated from the main article. Radioisotope thermoelectric generator needs to be its own article because it's quite a different animal, containing its own heat source. --Cornellier (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with thermoelectric generator? 
Talk:Common keelback

message: This article used to be an orphan, unreferenced duplicate of Yellow-spotted keelback (Xenochrophis flavipunctatus). It contained little information, and nothing that I felt is important to preserve. The species most commonly referred to as "common keelback" seems to be Tropidonophis mairii. Micromesistius (talk) 06:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Sinaloan milk snake

message: The article says that this snake is an egg-laying colubrid. Is there any such thing as a non-egg-laying colubrid? —BarrelProof (talk) 05:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Egg-laying colubrid
Talk:False coral

message: So other than "false coral snakes", what about fale *corals* (i.e. things confused with stony/scleratinian corals, which may not even belong to hexacorallia)? For example, stony fire coral and lace coral (i.e. millepora/stylasteridae, both hydrocorals), black coral, octocoral or soft corals, corallimorpharia or zooanthids, etc? Cesiumfrog (talk) 06:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  other than snakes
Talk:1979 World Netball Championships

message: Why was this a three-way tie? matturn (talk) 07:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, and why there's still this kind of article? Almost three years gone. Nothing else is said but that it had three winners. Ministub or what? 85.217.15.47 (talk) 04:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Global Justice or Global Revenge?

message: *Someone at 88.117.85.242 reverted my edit which pointed out that one of the sources in this article is self-published. I've put the information back, because by following the link it seems that this is true. If this was done in good faith and you can show that this is not true please post the information on this talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Walsworth Publishing Company

message: Sorry if the first draft looked like a spam post. I was starting a stub for a red link and wasn't done yet! --Corsair Armada (talk) 08:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not done yet!

message: Hello Corsair Armada, 
In response to your note on my discussion page, I have removed the spam tag.  You have added enough material that the article is no longer quite that. I would suggest, however, that it still may be speedied for being an article about a small, basically vanity printing house, with no real notability. Although you have two references, neither of them is much more than advertising the fact that the company exists.  If you want the article to stay, you will likely need a lot more information, and some write-ups from the regular press or a magazine of note.  You've been around longer than I have; you know the drill. :-) Bielle (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not quite spam anymore . . .
Talk:Loch Ewe

message: -----
As this is a sea loch, I removed the infobox for lakes. -- User:Docu
:Details like that don't matter - it's just about presenting the right information to the reader, they don't care what the infobox is called.  FlagSteward (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Under the Southern Cross I Stand

message: * Merge with Australian Cricket team. Team songs for Collingwood Football Club and Hawthorn Football Club are included in their respective articles. To me that sets a precedent. --One Salient Oversight (talk) 08:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but there are a zillion US College team songs that have articles by themselves. That's not an argument in itself, of course, but it means there's no uniform practice. StAnselm (talk) 10:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Save or Merge

message: 1. Is this song ever sung in any other circumstances, or by anybody else?
2. What's the melody, and is there a publicly available recording anywhere?
86.143.50.243 (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few questions
Talk:5-formyltetrahydrofolate cyclo-ligase

message: This article shows ATP as co-substrate, and ADP + phosphate as byproducts.
Since ATP == ADP + phosphate
This would mean that the primary substrate and primary product were chemically identical.
Clarification is needed as is the resurrection of the missing substrate (article deleted).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leopardtail (talk • contribs) 17:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not chemically sound
Talk:Acetate-CoA ligase (ADP-forming)

message: How can this reaction be adp-forming? There is not enough free energy to overcome the binding energy of the forming thioester. It is necessary to release an AMP and pyrophosphate, similar to the activation of all other monocarboxylated acids (e.g. palmitate). See also the article " Acetyl-CoA-Synthetase"!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.252.41.64 (talk) 15:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Medon (mythology)

message: I see how a Tyrrhenian pirate can be historical, but not in a single-sentence paragraph suggesting the attempt to enslave a god and being turned into fish as a result. 2601:602:9A00:66E:A13C:3FB1:EE14:1ADF (talk) 02:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  historical?
Talk:Type 4 Chi-To medium tank

message: I noticed that in the :Category:World War II tanks by country there's a great differentiation in how the individual articles are named. According to WP:NAMINGCRITERIA: "a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English." Respectively, in the :Category:World War II tanks of the United States (which is perhaps the most representative to English language articles on the subject), most articles have the word "tank" included in their titles: T14 Heavy Tank, T20 Medium Tank, T28 Super Heavy Tank, T29 Heavy Tank, T30 Heavy Tank, and so on. By contrast, in the :Category:World War II tanks of Japan the word "tank" is never (!) used in the title of their models, i.e.: Type 1 Chi-He, Type 1 Ho-Ni I, Type 2 Ho-I, Type 2 Ka-Mi, Type 2 Ke-To, Type 3 Chi-Nu, and so on. I would suggest that some kind of linguistic uniformity here be followed throughout, for the benefit of our readership. Wouldn't you agree? —  Poeticbent talk 18:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you. The new notice posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Re: should the word "tank" be included in the titles of articles about the tank models. — Poeticbent talk 19:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC about the names of relevant articles 

message: *I see what you are stating, and not all the others have the word "tank" after them. As for Japanese tanks, two have the word "tank" - Type 95 Heavy Tank & Type 98 20 mm AAG Tank. With that said, I would like to see what others state before writing my opinion as I think it over. Also, I would suggest this either be moved to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history board or at least post a notice there. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you. The new notice posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Re: should the word "tank" be included in the titles of articles about the tank models. — Poeticbent talk 19:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I just noticed the infobox states a diesel engine is used, whereas the development section refers to a gasoline engine.
I'm not familiar with the source cited for either (Appears to be different volumes of the same book) and don't otherwise know which is correct, but hopefully someone else can help.
Damp Cuttlefish (talk) 16:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Checked cited RS book and corrected scrivener's error. Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 15:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fuel type
Talk:Wild, Wild Planet

message: Always good to remember that this was the start of a series, known as the "Gamma IV Quartet".
Wild, Wild Planet
Planet On The Prowl
War Of The Planets
Snow Devils  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.241.103 (talk) 09:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This site has the order as: The Wild, Wild Planet (1965), The War of the Planets (1965), War Between the Planets (1966) and The Snow Devils (1967).—RJH (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Gamma IV Quartet
Talk:Razee

message: It would be good if the article could outline why ships were built in any other way in the first place. I can't do it, because I don't know why. John.Conway (talk) 11:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As the understanding of ship design evolved, it was usually older ships that were treasted in this way to extend their life. Also in later years smaller ttwo or three deck ships that could no longer perform well in that role because enemy ships were now bigger and better armed, were razeed to change their purpose to that of a strong frigate rather than a small ship of the line. It is explained in places in the article but reasons varied from ship to ship and period to period. Dabbler (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Why build anything else?

message: A ship is a razee if it was initially taller but was later cut down to size. A race-built ship may have been a razee conversion of an older ship, but was more often designed and built that way in the first place: the design was "cut down", not the ship itself.
Therefore, this article is a WP:COATRACK: An article that mixes up two different subjects that should have separate articles. -Arch dude (talk) 06:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflation of race-built and razee
Talk:106th Battalion (Nova Scotia Rifles), CEF

message: Pte Jones was serving with The Royal Canadian Regiment during the Vimy Ridge battles. 106th Battalion did not fight, so he should be properly recognized elsewhere.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kprtqrf06 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jeremiah Jones 

message: I have moved the section of: unit in the Canadian Expeditionary Force during the First World War to here since I'm not familiar with the Canadian structure. Thinking it may serve purpose here until someone can greatly expands the article. Adamdaley (talk) 03:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved Here
Talk:Russ Mobley

message: *http://www.lrc.ky.gov/legislator/H051.htm
*http://www.campbellsville.edu/news/images/cvillianspr06.pdf
*http://kytcnewsroom.ky.gov/News/2_16_07%20Taylor.htm
*http://www.cknj.com/articles/2002/11/08/news/04news.txt
*http://kytcnewsroom.ky.gov/News/2_16_07%20Adair%20County.htm
*http://www.brahttp://kytcnewsroom.ky.gov/News/2_16_07%20Adair%20County.htmtcher.cc/Stan/stan_lee_endorse.htm
*http://adairprogress.com/News/574.html
*http://www.cknj.com/cgi-bin/storyviewnew.cgi?085+News.2008130-1455-085-085012.Full+News
ツStacey (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links content to be put into article prose?