lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Hemlington

message: A local Hemlington postman has compiled a book compiling various architectural details that went into the planning and design of the settlement, "History and Intrigue is all around us", revealing that the entire area is in fact design as part of a complex symbology meant to refer to different places around England.
I have never incorporated a first hand literary reference into a Wikipedia article before. The information within this book is very well researched and would be great for the page. Could anyone else look into this book or else provide pointers on how to go about including its information into the article?
86.7.223.84 (talk) 23:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If this book is published by a reputable publisher it might be alright as a source. A publication's (post 1967) ISBN number might give some clue, however this is not conclusive as some publishers, with no financial risk, will accept vanity works under their auspices and add ISBNs, these often paid for by the author; these would generally not be acceptable or notable enough for the encyclopedia. If the publication has been reviewed, reported and quoted independently in multiple nationally notable publications/newspapers this might be acceptable. If the only source for a book is self-interested sites or pages, with only a product code (often found at Amazon), this shows that the book exists, but does not add proof that it is notable enough to quote. The information in the book by Craig Bulman appears to be his interpretation. Adding this information to the article would be fine if he is a notable person (this doesn't mean just locally well-known). If multiple independent and reliable sources (not his publisher or selling sites) can be found to indicate that he is a nationally notable person, this may be enough to make his book/s qualify. If so, a Wikipedia article should be written on him, testing this notability. If Bulman has quoted sources (have to be reliable) for his research, then access to those sources (see: WP:PSTS) could be useful to expand the article. However, just copying those sources from the book and taking on faith what Bulman says about them would not be acceptable. Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 10:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  History & Intrigue is all around us - incorporating these details into the article
File talk:Uncrimped rj-45 connector close-up.jpg

message: I'm getting confused. The 8P8C page links to this image with the following title: "An 8P8C modular plug that has yet to be crimped onto a cable", but the image has rj-45 in its name and summary. I think the 8P8C is the correct one, but someone should confirm (and correct) this. 82.141.167.23 13:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming error
Talk:The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett

message: This looks like WP:OR.  It is not clear from that the source supports the "Critics do not take into account..." statement.  More direct provenance for this statement needs to be supplied.  Also, the extensive quote does not seem pertinent to the article in its entirety.  See WP:LONGQUOTE. 
--Klaun (talk) 13:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: new section: Addendum 

message: These claims require independent sourcing. They are currently sourced to (a) a book published by Theosophical Publishing House; (b) a YouTube video by the Theosophical Society; and (c) a book by Geoffrey Barborka, a prominent Theosophist. If the text is to stand, then the claims need to be properly attributed, eg. "according to Theosophical sources, a study was done by the British Museum" etc, and "Theosophical author Geoffrey Baborka claimed" etc. But in my view, if there's no independent verification available for the British Museum study at least, then it doesn't belong in the article. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 05:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern criticism
Talk:Study in Consciousness

message: This site is the personally registered site of Anand Gholap of Pune, India. He has a disclaimer that he is not responsible for the use of anything on his site (http://www.anandgholap.net/Terms_Of_Use.htm). He makes no special claims of expertise or any affiliation. A number of texts and images from books are on his site but copyright status is uncertain as he does not have specific permission to make these public domain but has added these on the basis of his understanding of copyright law which is not the same as Wikipedia's. There is no guarantee that texts or images he includes are faithful reproductions or correctly sourced. His site fails WP:RS and WP:ELNO and should not be used as a reference or link for any article apart from (possibly) an article about himself.—Ash (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using anandgholap.net as a source or link
Talk:Battle of Nisibis (217)

message: Muslims not in Parthian History. Further this article fails to mention Roman desecrations of Parthian graves. Rome bit off more than they could chew. The Parthians were relatively peaceful. Rome was always the aggressor. This battle virtually ended the Parthian Empire as the loss of life was so great. Parthia dispels the myth of Roman invincibility. Rome has to resort to treachery to get Parthia on an even footing. The maji of Christ’s birth were from Parthia and is why Herod was so concerned with an arrival of 5-10,000 troops with maji to worship Christ at His birth. They assured Herod their intentions were peaceable. 207.98.147.164 (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muslims had nothing to do with Parthia. 400 years apart
Talk:Shabuhragan

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: no consensus. Neither the proposal, nor those who opposed it showed any evidence of what is the WP:COMMONNAME. (non-admin closure) VR talk 12:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Shabuhragan →  – Erzongjing is the name used more recently than Shabuhragan. SiliconProphet (talk) 19:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 9 October 2021 
Talk:Fundamental Epistle

message: I noticed that in March, you deleted all the quotations from Fundamental Epistle article, without any discussion whatsoever.  I'm sure your intention was to "clean up the article", and remove large quotations, which, I imagine you might say, would belong in a Wikitext article or something.  However, by deleting those quotations, you deleted a substantial amount of work that someone (namely me) had done to collect those quotations from out of Augustine's works.  It seems to me that it would have been more appropriate to suggest moving the material to Wikitext - or wherever you think it should go - instead of completely deleting material (and a few hours of work), which was relevant to the topic - "Manichaean texts", and which other people researching that topic would likely be interested in seeing.
Jimhoward72 (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is, at its core, an encyclopedia, and not an opportunity to list the best and worst quotations pertaining to an article's subject. If there are many quotations, please move them to Wikiquote and place a Wikiquote template on the article to inform readers that there are relevant quotations regarding the subject.
I hope this clears things up for you. If you have more comments or questions, please let me know. Kingturtle (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright - my only question would be, since these quotes were basically everything we have from a particular historical/religious text, namely, the Fundamental Epistle, why wouldn't it make sense to create a wiki-text article, instead of a wiki-quote article?  Would it matter if it were a wiki-text article instead?Jimhoward72 (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

text: In discussing this matter with another admin, WikiQuotes would probably be the best direction for this, although there would be nothing wrong with WikiSource. Kingturtle (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  re: quotes
Talk:Herschbach, Selters

message: Hello, the right name from "Herschbach, Selters" is Herschbach and the name from "Herschbach, Wallmerod" Herschbach (Oberwesterwald) Could you change this please? --87.182.14.243 13:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Ginza Rabba

message: This Ginza is grossly incomplete so does not qualify to correct any Mandaean-language edition of the Ginza, nor any of the translations of the Ginza into German or English.  The statement to the contrary in the main article is written by ignorant partisans of that Ginza.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.116.175 (talk) 05:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Al-Saadi Ginza 

message: Hi Mr. Gelbert,
eventhough your name is not visible, but there are also other signs and methods to find out who is writing such unobjective evaluations. You remember very well the campaign which you started in the yahoo-groups against the equivalent translation by Prof. Alsaadi and attacking him personally, but nevertheless I was objective and impartial in my evaluation of some pieces of your translation.
I still hope that you´ll get the message: these sites are not for advertising and attacking people! Please do not provoke with unprofessional comments! 
Since we know that your work(it would be fair to mention in the main article that Mark Lofts and Sue Aran were also involved in the translation and not only you) is not a really direct translation from Mandaic, I am able to discuss with you which mistakes does your translation have, whether linguistic or contextual.
Be able to put evidences and we can find out the truth if you want, but in a civil way!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drabsha1 (talk • contribs) 08:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  be objective 

message: The  first link to the concordance no longer links there.  It's now an advertisement page.
108.18.136.147 (talk) 14:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  link rot
Talk:Sensu

message: What about "sensu latiore"? Does anyone know its literal meaning?
:Not sure. Also "sensu ampliore". Hesperian 13:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sensu latiore and sensu ampliore belong here. Taxonomic terms belong in sensu (taxonomy). Doloco (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Sensu latiore'' and ''sensu ampliore''

message: I happened to look up this page and I liked the original text and would have left it. Then I noticed the gripe about technical section. So I added clarification with as little change as might be (as I saw it anyway!) 
Then I noticed the discussion questions about the comparative degrees etc, so I added something to reply to them.
I hope what I added was useful. Anyone interested in tidying it up...?
Cheers,
JonRichfield (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: However simple that sounds, it is one of the most fundamental principles of using available information in dealing with the world about us. In biological taxonomy, as you may see in the next section, the same principles are used...
I wonder if that concept of inclusion might be applied more directly to (the the gripe about) the technical section? (Everybody enjoys the principles of clear thinking.)  My eyes fogged over there not because it was too complex or technical, — but because it was too jargony, too specialized looking, an odd, alien wall excluding to all but a very few specialists. Or? ...perhaps the narrow specification and clarification was intended and required?  --69.239.205.135 (talk) 13:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Hmmm... Yes. Thanks. You are right. Not that I was trying to be difficult, it just happens to be the way I think about that subject. I'll try to turn it into human-speak ASAP. Every now an then one needs a brick against the skull to wake one up. Cheers, JonRichfield (talk) 14:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Hi again Doug, sorry to pester, but if you find yourself feeling masochistic, could you have another go and see whether it is now better or worse than before? I really am no longer capable of criticising it rationally. Numb. Thanks in optimism, JonRichfield (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Technical text

message: The 2nd example is factually incorrect - Malvaceae s.l. is also monophyletic, not polyphyletic. The reason for the adoption of the wider circumscription, including the former Bombacaceae, Sterculiaceae and Tiliaceae is that Bombacaceae is paraphyletic with respect to Malvaceae s.s. (and may even remain so after the exclusion of Matisieae) and Bombacaceae, Sterculiaceae and Tiliaceae are polyphyletic. (The former would be fixable by transferring Durioneae to Sterculiaceae, but the latter two require either swallowing them all into Malvaceae, or dividing the group into several more families, as in for example by Cheek in Heywood et al.) Lavateraguy (talk) 12:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: so should it just be removed? (As the discussion above shows, I have grave reservations about much of the article.) Peter coxhead (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples
Talk:Gama Goat

message: Removed the gamagoat.com link, as it's defaulting to a sales referral page on a holding site.Wzrd1 (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed dead external link 

message: Please see:  MOS:LEDE        
"The lead section (also known as the introduction, lead, or lede[1]) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects.<BR><BR>
"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies...."
For example, what was its reputation, was it hated by the troops? Why did the project fail? (A list of facts is not a description nor definition.) I saw this: "Upon decommission, most were destroyed due to safety concerns."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:4DD1:54A1:5C32:D831 (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede section is incomplete, out of spec
Talk:Acts of John

message: At the time of this edit, two other online sources were citing this article as their authority. The statements cited from this article are not supported by the underlying sources. Therefore, I have made the following corrections:
1) The article claimed that most scholars had dated the Acts of John to the Second Century, while Ehrman (the source cited) made the humbler claim, "It is difficult to know when the Acts of John was composed, but many scholars locate it to the second half of the second century." [Ehrman, Bart D. (2003-10-02). Lost Scriptures : Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament (Kindle Locations 2240-2241). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.] Ehrman himself cites none of these scholars, so it is difficult to dig much deeper.
2) The article claimed that the Second Council of Nicea was in 325. This was the claim that caught my eye. The First Council of Nicea was in 325; the Second was in 787. Ehrman locates the date in the correct century.
3) I deleted the claim that early Christians probably accepted the Acts of John, a claim Ehrman never makes, and replaced it with a claim he does make - that the docetist stuff is probably a later interpolation anyway. I left the contradictory claim that the Latin text has been "purged", which would indicate that the docetist stuff is original, since it was (poorly) sourced to a work I do not (yet) own. LUbunkrman (talk) 07:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsubstantiated Claims Corrected
Talk:Acts of Peter and the Twelve

message: The full title of this text is "The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.161.27.53 (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: untitled

message: Which of the following versions of the Summary section should be used? 
Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The quotes also do not mark gaps in the original and insertions by the translators and therefore does not follow MOS:PMC and good practice and gives a misleading impression of the state of the source. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

text: This is the only mention of storms in the text:  Note that "[...]" seems to mark gaps in the original. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 12:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC on Summary Section

message: A, with minor changes  In articles on religious texts, a high level of detail is important and appropriate, even for an encyclopedia. The existing version could use a minor copyedit for legibility, and the number and density of citations is clearly excessive. However, I don't think it should be substantially trimmed. Actualcpscm (talk) 12:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Freoh I don't think retaining user attention is a major priority; comprehensiveness is much more important than managing reader interest. Of course articles shouldn't go into absurd technical detail, but there is real encyclopedic value in a thorough summary. I'm also not sure why the purpose of the additional detail is unclear  it's there to provide relevant information, and such a level of detail is quite useful for the vast majority of readers seeking out this kind of article. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The quotes also do not mark gaps in the original and insertions by the translators and therefore does not follow MOS:PMC and good practice and gives a misleading impression of the state of the source. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

text: This is the only mention of storms in the text:  Note that "[...]" seems to mark gaps in the original. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 12:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion
Talk:Apocryphon of James

message: The article currently says "was probably written in the first half of the 2nd century ref: " and then "The usual date of composition for the text is during the 3rd century ref: J. K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993), 673. See further J. van der Vliet, “Spirit and Prophecy in the Epistula Iacobi Apocrypha (NHC I,2),” VC 44 (1990): 25–53." 2A00:23C6:148A:9B01:60BC:17DC:A063:677C (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date written
Talk:Grassington

message: Hello,
I had concerns regarding the neutrality of this article especially in the section entitled "culture and community." The majority of sources included in this section are in reference to heavily commercialized and biased, leading to a section with a heavy-handed tone toward finding "value" in this area. I question the necessity of a section with regards to "culture" without evidence regarding said culture beyond public or private organizations tasked with developing the area.
In addition, at least one of the sources is out of date or incorrectly referenced. [19] leads to a stub page on the website. I appreciate the work done here to create a diverse page with various sources. Randalj16 (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the issue myself. The references all lead to actual events that take place in the Grassington area and detail those events. Without the citations given, it would be a whole host of 'Citation needed' tags. I will look at ref [19], otherwise, I am not seeing what you are seeing. If you think the neutrality is compromised, tag it. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 10:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. These events are an important part of the Grassington year, and I don't do see the sources as overtly commercial. It's not a very good article, but that's a different issue. --Langcliffe (talk) 10:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm, interesting.  Would you like to expand on that? If there are issues then perhaps we can fix them. I'm not saying I am happy about the article, but I'd be interested to hear what you think is not right about it. Incidentally, is your user name anything to do with the place north of Settle? Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 10:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Neutrality and Content
Talk:Portola Institute

message: I'm not sure what the correct date of founding for the P.I. is, but it can't be 1974.  The P.I. published the first issue of Stewart Brand's Whole Earth Catalog in 1968, with Richard Raymond as the central figure in P.I. at the time.  This was reported in early issues of the Catalog.
By the way, is Richard Raymond the same as "Dick Raymond" who wrote gardening books and has (I believe) had a TV gardening show? Joel Russ 13:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think part of the info in the article as it now stand actually pertains to the POINT Foundation, which directed projects such as the later editions of the WEC and also CoEvolution Quarterly and Whole Earth Review.Joel Russ (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've revised the article with sources and have fixed the date. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good.  By the way, any particular reason why you've chosen (so far) not to respond to my e-mail to you (the one about CQ & WER)?Joel Russ (talk) 17:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Joel Russ. Sorry about that, I rarely check email so I didn't see your message (my talk page is the best place to contact me). I'll respond to your questions here. By all means, restore any parts of the article that can be sourced- it would be greatly appreciated. My goal was to clean up these articles which contained a great deal of unsourced information. Thanks for your work on these pages. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date
Talk:Torque and speed of a DC motor

message: I have done some tidying-up but more is needed. See my hidden comments in the article. Biscuittin 13:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

message: Electric motor is too long already and covers both AC and DC motors. An alternative would be to merge this article with Brushed DC Electric Motor but I'd prefer to let this article stand on its own. Biscuittin 15:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: Despite the title, this article says nothing about the torque, really.  It does not appear in the given equation.  I do know that in a DC series motor, the torque is only a funtion of the current, as is the flux.  I believe that in a series motor the torque is the flux times the current, but I am not sure that this applies to any other type of motor.
No one in particular, 2008-09-16  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.144.171.138 (talk) 04:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Torque?
Talk:Ghost sign

message: This was marked for Speedy within minutes of its creation when it was a minor stub (note edit history). I have added more, as a ghost sign is a recognized happening, at least in America and Canada. I may add an image or two but I am not sure if I want to release to a free license. Guroadrunner 13:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion contested

message: I proposed a merge with labelscar which I take back now after realizing they are probably not the same thing.  Tuxide of WikiProject Retailing 05:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge withdrawn