lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Bell Bottom Trousers

message: I see that the name change I made to this article yesterday was necesssitated by the same person (Ralph Malin?), who I see has been vandalizing several pages in Wikipedia.  I just wanted to bring this to your attention.  I wondered how that had happened.Apace361 (talk) 06:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 'Bell Bottom Trousers' and 'Rosemary Lane' are the same song. If nobody else wants to try, I'll attempt a single article. David Crosbie 4 October 2012.DavidCrosbie (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Rosemary Lane
Talk:Lacunar stroke

message: Much of the pathophysiology section has been lifted directly from http://www.emedicine.com/PMR/topic63.htm. I don't know whether to delete (though I know it should be) as I don't have the knowledge or expertise to create something new. 78.86.59.175 (talk) 08:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism 

message: "It displays a combination of cerebellar and motor symptoms, including weakness and clumsiness, on the ipsilateral[2] side of the body."
Sounds like it produces weakness on the ipsilateral side of the body. Maybe I missed something... but if the lesion happens before decussation - should it produce contralateral weakness...  Sounds confusing especially taking upper table line into consideration. Maybe they were talking about coordination and motor lesions on the same side, but the phrase sounds confusing to me.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.53.201.35 (talk) 00:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing
Talk:Scientific American Mind

message: Published by Scientific American since 2004, Scientific American Mind has uncovered new thinking on dreaming and consciousness, intelligence and cognition, imagination and emotions, depression and mental illness, and perception and understanding.  
I removed that part because it reads like advertisement, and the source for the statement was the publishing company (!).
I left there the info on the date of publication (2004) as it seems accurate .
If someone at SciAm Mind is reading this, please contribute with some info on the significance of the magazine, quoting if possible a reliable outside source. I think it is a great publication that probably deserves a better wikipedia entry. 216.239.81.210 (talk) 06:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertisement
Talk:Declaration of independence of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam

message: On Aug 23, 1997 an episode of History's Mysteries on The History Channel dealt with the OSS mission to the Viet Minh in 1945. There were extensive interviews with the following OSS officers: Lt. Charles Fenn, Cap. Raymond Grelecki, and Major Archimedes Patti, the mission leader. These three had participated at the Vietnamese declaration of independence ceremonies on September 2, 1945 and wanted the U.S. to support the new government. Patti showed a letter that he received from Washington stating that: We were not to return Indo China to the French under any circumstance. Period. The program also showed a letter written by Ho asking the State Department for economic aid, diplomatic relations, and not to support the French return. Archimedes Patti is the author of Why Viet Nam?: Prelude to America's Albatross.Italus (talk) 04:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
File talk:TonyBennettCloud7Cover.jpg

message: This image has been flagged by a bot as having a disputed fair use rationale. Yet the rationale was provided using one of the standard templates and would appear to conform to normal use – it simply illustrates a particular album on a single cited page via a low-resolution image. The bot provides no specifics about what is judged to be inadequate and there is no obvious talk page for contesting the bot's judgment. Annoying. Trevor Hanson (talk) 06:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to User:AWeenieMan for applying a FURME update here. We have gone from what I originally thought was a sufficient FUR (via ) to a slightly beefier one (via my use of  to a gloriously detailed version via . I can infer that there must have been progression in policy or practice on what constitutes a sufficient FUR, but frankly there is so much discussion and information on the topic that I couldn't figure out what was needed. Trevor Hanson (talk) 09:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use
Talk:Vietnam: The Origins of Revolution

message: Nice work done on this book by a disciple of Paul Mus. The French version is better known.
Paul Mus was the first author of this book published in 1970 after his death (1969). John T. McAlister doctoral dissertation is based on Paul Mus "Vietnam. Sosologie d'une guerre", 1952, Seuil, Paris.
Takima (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Paul Mus]]?
Talk:Trotskyism in Vietnam

message: I listed Loren Goldner's article, which is published by New Politics, whose (leftwing) authors are intelligent and fair-minded  enough to make complacent liberals/social-democrats uncomfortable. I don't know whether it is a reliable source. Like Solidarity's  Against the Current, it is often somewhat interesting (unlike e.g. Monthly Review).
I assume that the Spartacus collection should be used with extreme caution; however, Alexander cites it, so it may be of use.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: This page should merged into Communism in Vietnam, they cover much of the same material and the latter could benifit from more information. Charles Essie (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: this article is hard to read. i surgest formating the article into a more readable manner.  Rebelgender (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is in need of Restructure.
Talk:Hoa people in Ho Chi Minh City

message: This article is in a state of disrepair. It has no reliable sources nor has it been check for factual accuracy and neutrality. It is yet another one of the many articles about Vietnam that is extremely biased and offensive. Perhaps the article should be nominated for deletion. In any case, there seems to be very little value at all in having this article  exist at all. 122.105.147.208 (talk) 13:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's funny how this was even approved in the first place, with no references in it. The user who created this article also is the one that made the anti-Vietnamese sentiment article, which initially also had no references and just blatantly included a whole essay of vietnamphobia. What a troll that guy was. 49.190.240.37 (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article in a state of disrepair 
Talk:Ray Lui

message: I removed the section from the main article, as it is completely unsourced.  It probably shouldn't even be on the talk page, but it might be sourced (in a Chinese language source), so I don't want to prevent proper additions.
Lui has an elder brother, an elder sister, and two younger brothers. He married thrice and two of his marriages were highly publicised in the media. In 1985, he started a relationship with actress Kathy Chow (周海媚) ;and married her on 9 November 1988 in the United States. They divorced five months later. In 1996, Lui married Cally Kwong Mei Wan (鄺美雲) but they divorced six months later, and it was revealed that their marriage had not been officially registered. In January 2001, Lui married Yang Xiaojuan and they have a son, Lui Sin-yeung (呂善揚).
— Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal life
Talk:Ascending aorta

message: I suggest adding the term "aortic root" with a redirect to this page. Thomas.Hedden (talk) 00:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That was done.  However, the article lacks an illustration to show this structure and related structures, such as the sinotubular junction and aortic sinuses.  Added "Anatomical diagram requested|date=April2020" yoyo (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the diagrams does include these details - I have removed the Anatomical diagram requested tag (by converting it to text). Egmason (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: "Aortic root"

message: Removed redundant headers. Sbauman487 (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Relations
Talk:Murder of Shiori Ino

message: The language is decidedly anti-police. Pairadox (talk) 06:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The incident was surely too extreme, but they actually committed errors.--ACSE (talk) 02:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

text: If you can read Japanese, JAWP article will be a reference.--ACSE (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV
Talk:Nhân Dân

message: When I search for the article, an image of the Vietnamese emblem shows up as the thumbnail, not Nhân Dân's logo. Can anyone fix this for the Nhân Dân logo to show up as the thumbnail? I'm new, and I don't know how to change the thumbnail. RandomGuy3114 (talk) 02:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article picture
Talk:Subdural hematoma

message: If someone wants to fix those first two refs to make them prettier, be my guestDrchazz (talk) 08:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: First two references

message: The "Signs and symptons" section needs to better differentiate between the onset of symptoms for acute, subacute, and chronic. The line Thus, signs and symptoms may show up within 24 hours but can be delayed as much as 2 weeks.[5] is misleading because acute subdural hematoma can produce symptoms in minutes, if not immediately. To say "within 24 hours" could cause someone to wait and not seek proper medical treatment. See http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000713.htm. When the section gets fixed, please go ahead and remove my flag. Thanks. 5Q5 (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing / Unclear flag - Signs & Symptoms

message: The term 'subdural space' is no longer used and is an inaccurate term.  The arachnoid and dura are continuous.  Subdural hematomas occur between the arachnoid and dura because the intercellular connections between the two layers are weak and the path of least resistance.  I suggest changing the wording in the first paragraph to avoid refering to a subdural space as though it actually exists.
Pwawryko (talk) 17:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to subdural space
Talk:Academic Medical Center (Amsterdam)

message: I believe that "Academic medical center" is a technical term for a certain kind of US hospital affiliated with university medical schools.  Could we create a disambiguation page to allow a page for the technical definition to be created? 01:41, 22 January 2008 75.22.18.29 (talk)
:The term used in Wikipedia is Teaching hospital.  There is also a redirect, University hospital that goes to this.  It might be best to rename this article Academic Medical Center (Amsterdam).    13:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved  -- Talk to G Moore 13:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Should be generic for affiliated
Talk:Union Aid Abroad – APHEDA

message: Hi all! I am thinking of adding another section 'Goals and objectives' of the organisation. I am thinking of putting this section after the History section. Would love to get some opinions on whether or not this would be a good space for this section. Thanks!
LMJ050100 (talk) 04:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Order of a new section

message: * Specific text to be added or removed:	The hatnote present for the lead section - This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Australian People for Health, Education and Development Abroad" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (March 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
* Reason for the change: I have recently amended the lead section to include references at each point.
* References supporting change: Evidence of references are within the lead section, specifically there are now three references to support this section. Overall, the article is now supported by 29 articles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_People_for_Health,_Education_and_Development_Abroad
LMJ050100 (talk) 08:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This now looks like a well-referenced article. Good work LMJ050100! Extua (talk) 08:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you  Your validation is much appreciated. If you are able to and see this as relevant, would you please be able to remove the hatnote on this page for me? Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LMJ050100 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to remove hatnote
Talk:Investigation of a Flame

message: ===Discussion===
I would like to thank Arxiloxos for fixing the problems I highlighted. I would ask if this article was worth saving, however apparently to users such as Arxiloxos, it is. Thank you so much for taking the time out of your day to generate in-line citations and congratulations on saving an article from proposed deletiion that I see you care for. Seeing that much more work has gone into the article, I expect more bold edits going into this article in the future. I will note that I am keeping an eye on this article and will ensure that it receives the attention it apparently deserves.
Best regards,
--Cawhee (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previous proposal for deletion 

message: I would like to thank Arxiloxos for fixing the problems I highlighted. I would ask if this article was worth saving, however apparently to users such as Arxiloxos, it is. Thank you so much for taking the time out of your day to generate in-line citations and congratulations on saving an article from proposed deletiion that I see you care for. Seeing that much more work has gone into the article, I expect more bold edits going into this article in the future. I will note that I am keeping an eye on this article and will ensure that it receives the attention it apparently deserves.
Best regards,
--Cawhee (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion
Talk:National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam

message: This article has not a single cite.  Even a cursory glance shows glaring errors of fact - for example, this one sentence paragraph
Following the election of Richard M. Nixon, Mobe organized a "counter-inaugural" to take place in Washington D.C. on the day of Nixon's inauguration. This demonstration as well attracted only about 10,000 and was accompanied by street violence. Considering there were 7000 protesters arrested that day in Washington, DC [United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary], the 10,000 number is almost surely pulled from thin air. I do not think that ANY other single demonstration in the United States even approached that number of arrested demonstrators. 
Perhaps this entire article should be reduced to a one sentence stub that can be expanded with well-cited sources that provide reliable information.
Neonorange (talk) 05:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please start over 

message: The prior revision's wording, 'attempted by means of meditation and chanting to "levitate" the building', was clever as a slogan-meme, and worth quoting, but is almost certainly a bald-faced lie.  No one who was in possession of their rational faculties came closer than verbally and by play-acting, performing actions metaphorically representing that fantasy meme, and we may even have frank admissions from some of the organizers that they would not have claimed to be stating actual intentions or beliefs if they expected stable minds to fail to recognize the mock-intentions as ironic suggestions that would advance the following perception: that the policy-makers in the administration were irrational, and/or lying to the portion of the population who would accept the lies as plausible. (Sorry; it's ironic that adequately stating what 'should not need ' explication is a really tough task! And I've given myself the task -- in case it may be needed -- of adequately stating what should be "obvious".) --Jerzy•t 19:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  'attempted by means of meditation and chanting to "levitate" the building'
Talk:Seattle Liberation Front

message: Today I was reading this article simply because I had never heard of its subject until seeing a link somewhere else in Wikipedia. I was struck by the wording that "Whether because the SLF was still a young organization or because the turnout was much higher than expected, the demonstration quickly got out of hand..."
What if the SLF organizers as a group, or perhaps an agent provocateur within the SLF, wanted the demonstration to proceed just as it did?! These possibilities are not mentioned. I have no knowledge of what actually happened, nor even of what competing views about responsibility/causation may have been offered at the time of the demonstration or trial -- but I am pretty sure that few readers would suppose that there were only two possible causes for the course of events at the demonstration, and I believe that the current wording effectively weasels the SLF organizers out of perceived full responsibility for the crimes that were committed. Publius3 (talk) 01:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failure to observe NPOV ; weaseliness 

message: Is there information that support why the group fell apart? This would be helpful in the Aftermath section. (Thegreatbuckeyes (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The breakup 

message: The article says it "remains ambiguous." Marshall's desire to dissociate himself with Weather is clear but are there any references to be found of Weatherman claiming camaraderie with SLF similar to how they associated themselves with the Black Panther Party?--Cykesummers (talk) 05:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Affiliation with Weatherman
Talk:The Camden 28

message: This reader longs for sentences written in the active voice.
Walter Dufresne (talk) 13:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sentences written in the active voice were longed for by that reader. Beorhtwulf (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The article as it stands doesn't say anything about what these people did after the affair that brought them to public attention. If anyone has this information (in reliable sources of course), it would be good to include it in the article. Beorhtwulf (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subsequent lives 

message: He gave his home for defense headquarters to help fund tge legal costs of the Camden 28. FBI raided his home in August 1971 and arrested him. After the aquittal of the Camden 28 the Feds dropped all charges against him but not until it cost him his position at Rutgers University and The American Translators association. He settled out of court in 1977 with the FBI but his life was ruined and he never regained his positions nor did his marriage survive. 2601:84:837E:6800:54B7:3894:C322:C8E9 (talk) 00:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dale Cunningham.
Talk:Neural pathway

message: The first named pathways were evident even in a poorly-preserved delicious brain, 
Delicious?? ;o)
78.146.246.14 (talk) 12:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That was straightforward vandalism and has since been removed. Qwfp (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming of neural pathways 

message: The information below lacks a reliable source.
I've put it here so that parts of it can be added to the article again when someone finds a source.
--VeniVidiVicipedia (talk) 15:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content lacking (reliable) source 

message: Restored page content - refs etc need to be asked for on page and given time for responding to --Iztwoz (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: What would be a good amount of time before removing the content? VENIVIDIVICIPEDIAtalk 21:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's quite a long standing page - suggest time frame needs checking - there are cn's that have been on pages for years. There is a fair bit of material on page that is incorrect and this could be more easily weeded out. But where links are used these are often well based. If you cannot be bothered to make constructive changes to the page yourself, I would suggest it's better to just leave it. Best --Iztwoz (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the whole concept of a 'neural pathway' and no reliable sources will come up that use it in a concrete manner. VENIVIDIVICIPEDIAtalk 22:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Restored page

message: A better placing for the page which otherwise links to computing networks (unless specified). There is overlap already and are referred to in  "neural  pathways and networks" in some searches Iztwoz (talk) 06:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  The merge suggestion was not to treat them as the same concept but to give biological neural network a new home - they are both small pages and often included together on searches.--Iztwoz (talk) 06:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I would still oppose it. The same benefit can be achieved by using :Template:For in a hatnote. Small page size is not a big deal, and the concepts are simply too unrelated to find a home on the same page. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Biological neural network]]
Talk:Nguyễn Sĩ Bình

message: Name needs diacritics. Badagnani (talk) 04:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Diacritics
Talk:Dorsal column–medial lemniscus pathway

message: I created a disambig page for DCML. The other links there do not seem that notable at all (possibly dead markup language and a disney mailing list) vs. the neuro pathway. Therefore, I suggest redirecting the DCML page to here.--Xris0 (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirection

message: As above Tom (LT) (talk) 07:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggest new target to Dorsal column nuclei as included with these (TA).--Iztwoz (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Support the initial proposal rather than the alternative. The Cuneate fasciculus is a (white matter) tract that is a subset of the (white matter) Dorsal column–medial lemniscus pathway, not the (grey matter) Dorsal column nuclei. Klbrain (talk) 16:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggest instead to merge dorsal column nuclei together with their fasciculi since they are all part of the DCML pathway.Iztwoz (talk) 08:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: See my response below. Klbrain (talk) 08:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Cuneate fasciculus]] 

message: Although I don't usually like the use of acronyms, I think that the use of the acronym for this pathway (DCML or PCML) may actually improve readability. Thoughts of other editors? --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean as the page name?--Iztwoz (talk) 07:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean - within the article. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be already in use ?--Iztwoz (talk) 05:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of acronym 

message: Have removed  –   Consider: Corona radiata --> 3 1 2 Brodmann.   – without anything further it means nothing. ?--Iztwoz (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit