lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Pylon (architecture)

message: We have to be able to do better than Pylon (obelisk). Suggestions:
*Pylon (architecture)
*Pylon (gateway)
*Pylon (temple)
*Pylon (Egypt)
Others? Thoughts? –Hajor 22:09, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I know what you mean - I wasn't terribly impressed with 'obelisk' either. I would go with Pylon (architecture). At first I worried that Electricity pylons were also architecture, but they are closer to structures.  -- Solipsist 22:57, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: A quick glance at my dictionary shows several definitions of "Pylon" that do not even mention obelisk. (Although they all refer to a connotation of "tower" in their definitions.) Pylon (architecture) would appear to be a good choice, unless this word is also used in a non-Egyptological context. -- llywrch 23:48, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article location?

message: Since a pylon in ancient Egypt is used as an entrance (or gateway) and is also an architecture structure I don't mind what solution has been made.
I don't agree with the idea of an obelisk. An obelisk is standing before the actual gateway or pylon (See the Temple of Luxor, one obelisk is still there, the other stands on the Place de la Concorde, Paris).
Further more is the english first meaning for the word 'Pylon':
1. Entrance, entry to an Egypt temple.
2. Honour entrance gate.
3. Pillar or column, like the electical pylon.
So what shall be the verdict? - User:Harm 00:06, 13 Jun 2005  (Solipsist 20:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pylon, Egypt, Electrical, Ancient vs Modern
Talk:Me So Horny

message: This page was listed on votes for deletion.  Please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Me so horny for the results of the debate. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:39, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Votes for deletion results 

message: :Largely as a result of the hit song, which repeats "me so horny" 37 times, this phrase and "me love you long time" became stock phrases. They have been referenced or quoted in episodes of South Park and Family Guy, among others. Some consider use of these phrases to be stereotypical and offensive; these phrases came into vogue as a result of the hit song, however.
My guess is that the *film* popularized these phrases. Either way, I've removed it as unsourced. jdb ❋ (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable source 

message: Thanks! For great justice. 22:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone grab a fair use sample of the original phrase from FMJ? 

message: Doesn't the line "Me love you long time" also appear in the song London Bridge (Fergie song)? --Addict 2006 19:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll add it to the article now, along with another reference I found. YoungWebProgrammer msg 05:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "me love you long time" in [[Fergie (singer)|Fergie]]'s [[London Bridge (Fergie song)]] 

message: As currently published in the article: "The explicit nature of the lyrics of this song and the album led to the initially successful prosecution of the group on obscenity charges and the album being banned from sale in Florida."
I could be mistaken because it was years ago. But as I recall, 'As Nasty As They Wanna Be' was only banned in Broward county, not all of Florida. Back then, I remember regular conflict between Nick Navarro, then Broward county sheriff, and 'Uncle Luke' and the rest of the Crew over this album and their performances there. I certainly don't recall the album or their performances ever being 'banned' in Miami-Dade county. Darnold01 01:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Album's Banning In Florida?  
Talk:Elenchos

message: This page was listed on votes for deletion.  Please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Elenchos for the results of the debate. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:47, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Votes for deletion results 

message: I've expanded the stub and hope that this shows that it should not be deleted.
I'm worried about premise four (i.e. that Socrates claims the result is the falsity of the thesis and the truth of its contrary): this is Vlastos's interpretation and is not universally accepted. However, I thought I should include one complete account of the elenchos, and Vlatos's is perhaps the best known.--Dast 13:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanded Stub
Talk:Land and Liberty (Russia)

message: Is this the same thing as the Black Partition party, or is that something else? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:58, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
:I see. we refer to Black Repartition rather than Black Partition. I'll add a redirect. Still, this article should mention that name, no? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:01, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
::I see, you like to talk with smart people (yourself :-). May I join?... Yes, the second name is also used, and redirect is in place. But, e.g., EB uses "Re", a more precise translation, both in language and in original name intentions. Mikkalai 07:26, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Black (Re)partition

message: I just added the Circle of Tchaikovsky, and I need you knowledgeable people to add to its history. I am following Kropotkin's memoirs . He has stuff on Dmitry Klements, a great buddy of his, although he calls him Dmitri Kelnitz for obvious reasons. But he gets arrested and we don't hear about the Circle anymore. Would you have other sources to draw from? Mr.Rocks 08:31, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Chaikovtsi

message: Please make a disambiguation page for this. It means (1) Revolutionary Slogans (2) Newspaper (3) Russian Revolutionary Organization (4) Herzen's program
I'd do it, but I am not clear how to do it.
Skovoroda 18:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation page for "land and liberty"
Talk:NPN

message: ----
I'm not sure how appropriate it was for me to add the mnemonic but I thought it might add to understanding and identifying a NPN BJT. Feel free to edit or suggest changes. B.K. 03:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

message: Is that symbol correct? Shouldn't it have an arrow indicating a) which is emitter and which is collector, and b) whether it's NPN or PNP? B.Mearns*, KSC 02:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, someone used an automated tool to replace all the PNG images with an SVG replacement, without checking to see whether the replacement was actually an improvement.  In this case, the SVG was broken. — Omegatron 05:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbol
Talk:Beyond Blue

message: This page was listed on votes for deletion.  Please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Beyondblue for the results of the debate. -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Votes for deletion results 

message: Some possible references to use to expand the article:
*Awareness of beyondblue: the national depression initiative in Australian young people (Informa Healthcare)
*The impact of beyondblue: the national depression initiative on the Australian public's recognition of depression and beliefs about treatments (Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry)
Somno (talk) 02:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Update headquarters from Hawthorn to Melbourne. 203.213.109.50 (talk) 09:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location
Talk:Fushun

message: The map on zh.wiki looks as if being a bit more up-to-date (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Administrative_Division_Fushun.png) --katpatuka (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map on zh.wiki more up-to-date 
Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/RK 2/Proposed decision

message: Apparently RK is very biased against many people and will resort to any means including misusing wikipedia to achieve what he wants. His recent biased POV edits to chabad have proven this.--203.84.85.137 07:39, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

message: It's not clear from the votes what length the personal attack parole will ultimately be. --Michael Snow 19:40, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: With the current majority of 5, this isn't clear - I've asked the other arbitrators to express a preference to sort this out -- sannse (talk) 22:30, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I switched from 6 to 12 - David Gerard 22:55, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Before this is closed
Talk:Jungfrau Park

message: Hello RickK !
Regarding the edits about "He went as far as grossly forge "proofs" (see Von Däniken" and " The overal impression is quite cheap ", I understand that the formulation is not appropriate... Do you think that there coud be alternative formulations which could save these ? 
The part about Von Däniken might sound a little bit tendencious, but his claim to "educate" the population would probably be better presented with at least a lmited background on the fellow.
For the "cheap" part... I think you'd have to be there to judge -- it's hardly believable. I remember the badly adjusted projectors, the ridiculous flying saucer coming down from the ceiling "Ed Wood"-like, the lack of animations, ... I'm not even talking about the content of the message, but the mere means of commnication were really sub-standard compared to things like "Futuroscope" in Poitier. You se that there is even a press report which addresses this... (even in the context of "is expected to provide a boost for the stagnant local economy. The park has created 120 new jobs and the company expects to attract half a million people a year." -- now that say somehting). So again, do you think that a better formulation is possible ?
Thanks and cheers ! Rama 07:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello 

message: The official page link doesn't work for me, and I cannot find out. Does anyone know for sure? Kelisi 21:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it open now? 

message: The entry has some serious style problems that could be resolved with better copyediting.Hoopes (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: To Alli_jayne321
Talk:Nob Hill, San Francisco

message: The link to the York Hotel doesn't link there.  How does this get fixed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredzena (talk • contribs) 05:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: York Hotel

message: It's incorrect to state that the entire neighborhood burnt down in the 1906 fire--I've put in a phrase about the impressive, faux-medieval wall that once surrounded the large Stanford and Hopkins properties.  That wall is still standing--in fact, I'm looking at it out my fourth-floor window right now.  We've owned a vacation condo near the top of the hill for seven years now and the local history is quite fascinating.  But this is not original research--if anyone wants a citation for it, I can find one easily.  The neighborhood's history is very well documented. Qworty 02:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wall that surrounded the Stanford and Hopkins mansions

message: The section describing the hotels on Nob Hill has no citation and does not accurately describe the location of the hotels. The article says:
"The intersection of California and Powell streets is also the home to the illustrious hotels in San Francisco: the Fairmont Hotel, the Mark Hopkins Intercontinental Hotel, the Stanford Court, and the Huntington Hotel."
Of those hotels, the Stanford Court is the only one that is at the intersection of California and Powell. While the Fairmont occupies a full city block, it's entrance is on Mason. Likewise, the Mark Hopkins entrance is at the intersection of Mason & California, a block up from Powell street. The Huntington is two blocks away from Powell at California & Taylor. The Ritz Carlton is not mentioned, but it's also one block away (in the opposite direction) on Stockton between California and Pine.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjmalone (talk • contribs) 00:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of Nob Hill Hotels 

message: Can someone fix this please? --72.65.122.51 (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Window Grill pic? 

message: The slang word "Nob" meaning rich or wealthy is a shortened version of the word nobility,a word used in Britain to describe the Titled Class.94.197.187.244 (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. This should be in the article. -lifeform (talk) 04:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of "Nob" 

message: -rudyard (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curious: when did the first building go up? 

message: Mention official(?) boundaries (used in area calculation) and legal status.Jidanni (talk) 00:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boundaries
Talk:General Products

message: Terminology error: GP hulls and "hullmetal" refer to two different things. The GP hull is the "artificially generated giant molecule with inter-atomic bonds artificially strengthened by a small power plant". "Hullmetal" is a human-produced material used for ships after the Exodus (like the Sinclair yacht Beowulf doesn't want to use), and occasionally other things (Louis's fake cabinet in Ringworld Engineers).--Christopher Thomas 07:49, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed in text. --Christopher Thomas 16:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: GP hulls vs. hullmetal

message: This article states that both a #2 and #4 hull were used in Ringworld. I believe this is incorrect. Perhaps the #4 is supposed to refer to Ringworld Engineers? - Frankie
Ringworld Engineers showed only one ship: Needle, in a #3 hull.  Ringworld had Lying Bastard in a #2, Long Shot in a #4 and the unnamed #3 hull that transfered the landing party from the Long Shot to the fleet of worlds.  --KevinK 14:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ringworld discrepancy 

message: Galactic Core under General Products' #4 hull links to a Star Wars article. I think this should be mended... maybe with a new article describing the galactic core explosion from the known space series...
Hmmm.... maybe I should create an account... 69.91.52.42 04:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Thanks for catching the error. --Christopher Thomas 21:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Galactic Core 

message: Question: Is the name "General Products" a reference to the real life car company "General Motors"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.71.7.193 (talk • contribs) on 19:23, 12 August 2006.
:Beats me. If it was, we'd need a statement from Mr. Niven to be in print somewhere before the article could say so, due to verifiability requirements. If he's said something like this in one of his books, by all means post the citation so that this information can be added. --Christopher Thomas 06:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Allusion to General Motors?

message: This article needs a pic of the 4 hull types.  I'd do it, but I'm unsure of how to paste pics into the article. Pb8bije6a7b6a3w (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  pictures needed
Portal talk:Mathematics

message: Remove "Used for calculation, it is considered the most important subject". This sentence is a subtle attempt to inject subjectivity and goes against Wikipedia's policies against anonymous authority or weasel words.
Rocky-the-revolutionary (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove anonymous authority 

message: There is a page (here) that contains several statements without a source, I believe the reason is because the supposed proof is found in a dedicated fandom (formerly wikia). Even though it is not a good source, I think it is necessary to add this item as a reference, because as it stands now, it is just a statement without any source, it would not make more sense to add the reference so, in case someone wants to check and point out errors/corrections, than just leaving it there as a statement? JosterFen (talk) 14:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about sources for math proofs
Talk:The Virgin Suicides

message: My initial impression from the introduction was that the book is based on actual events, something which is reinforced by the strong in-universe writing of the plot summary. I actually needed to go through the article twice before being certain that this initial impression was faulty.
94.220.255.173 (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing fictionality
Talk:Henry Brand, 1st Viscount Hampden

message: what does Second Creation mean? Kingturtle 07:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Henry was the 1st Viscount Hampden, but the title had been given once before and died out. So the title was "created" a second time for him. It's a pretty standard way of designation peerage titles unambiguously, rather than counting the absolute number of title holders since time immemorial...the numbering tends to get a bit off if you try that. Another (and yet more unambiguous) way of saying the same thing would be  (in this case) "1st Viscount Hampden of the 1884 creation". Maybe the box would be better off without "Preceded by". - Nunh-huh 08:08, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Talk:Coherence (physics)

message: Why don't you first explain the concept (it's never done in the article) and then use it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koitus~nlwiki (talk • contribs) 05:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coherence area 

message: shouldn't the delay be half T, not T? Kaitattersall (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Figure 1 under Temporal Coherence 

message: The first sentence of the lede seems incorrect to me:
"In physics, two wave sources are coherent if their frequency and waveform are identical."
If I vary the phase of one wave randomly with respect to another wave of the same frequency, these waves would be incoherent, AFAIK.
Further down in the lede we read:
"Two waves are said to be coherent if they have a constant relative phase."
Constant relative phase implies identical frequency, the reverse is not true.
The waveform has no role in coherence. If the composite waves have constant relative phase then all of the Fourier components would also have constant relative phase. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I reorganized, streamlined, and cited the lede. Please take a look. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of coherence.  

message: The quantum coherence section was a muddle and poorly referenced. I subdivided it into topics that could grow into proper summaries of other articles.  
The macroscopic section and resource theory sections need work, esp. just proper links to other articles to start.
Please let me know if you have any concerns or suggestions. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrote the quantum coherence section.
Talk:Ranganatha

message: The detailed information of Ranganatha temples is UNDUE to the article. I will suggest moving it to Pancharanga Kshetrams. This article should be only about the deity, his iconography and history of his worship mainly and temples in brief. --Redtigerxyz  Talk  10:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:UNDUE]]
Talk:Gavin Newsom

message: The article has a very well written, very reliably sourced section regarding Newsom's support of gun control.
In the name of fairness, I think the article should also mention Newsom helping to get early release for this convicted shooter in this Los Angeles Times article. The guy shot into a car with four people. He caused one of them to be paralyzed for life. He was convicted and sent to prison.
Newsom helped this convicted shooter to get out of prison early. Newsom was also photographed in public with him. Newsom also helped him to get a government job.
It's great that the article mentions that Newsom supports gun control. I think the article should also mention that Newsom helped this convicted shooter to get out of prison early, was photographed in pubic with him, and helped him to get a government job.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-11-10/prison-reform-jarad-nava-sacramento
SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 20:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I could tell before even clicking on the LA Times link that your description above is lacking in detail and nuance. Yes, it's a well-written article, kudos to Hannah Wiley. And why is Newsom commuting his sentence relevant to this article? He hasn't reoffended, a la Willie Horton. It sounds like this guy was successfully rehabilitated, which is allegedly the purpose of prison. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. Then let's mention all of those things in the article. Let's mention his crimes, the length of his prison sentence, the length of time he spent in prison before he was released, and the reason for his release. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 02:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Position on guns 

message: From 1992 to 1997, Newsom dated Montessori nursery school teacher Kelley Phleger, current wife of actor Don Johnson.Ostler, Scott (April 7, 1998). "Rumors From Average Guy -- I Ain't Nosy". SFGate. Myrna11 (talk) 05:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ex-girlfriend
Talk:Vogliatemi bene

message: I don't agree. I think it could be Un bel di vedremo --195.76.142.130 10:13, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The most famous?

message: I don't think we should move this article. It covers more than just the text, and, as the article states, it is a very famous aria. Other arias have their own articles; for instance, Nessun Dorma. Moreover, the recording by Maria Callas is a significant work in the world of opera. The libretti should be covered in wikisource; the famous arias should be allowed to remain here on wikipedia. Wikisource is for texts, not for articles about texts. RedRabbit1983 14:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: candidate to be moved to wikisource

message: This is not an aria! is a section of a duet.... an article about a section of a duet?! --Al Pereira(talk) 02:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a rather ridiculous article. It is not an aria, and the mention of Callas is questionable. Also, I would hardly describe Butterfly as verismo. This should be severly shorn and merged with the main article, which I will do shortly. --203.129.50.179 09:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely agree. --Al Pereira(talk) 09:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ??? 

message: I don't see any reason to have an article about a section of a duet. In addition to this, the article doesn't say anything. --Al Pereira(talk) 05:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And it is not the most famous part of the duet. --Al Pereira(talk) 05:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, there is nothing special or famous about this part at all. It should be merged with the main article - Jay (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ??? second part