lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Cameron Mitchell (actor)

message: There is a photo in the 'Gravesite' Link (See External links).
:Michael David 14:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Find-A-Grave Photo 

message: He looked Italian. Any Italian parentage? He looked like he had his nose cosmetically reduced. Any such surgery reported anywhere?Lestrade (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, his background surname makes his nationality/ethnicity German. Not really sure what you mean by "looks Italian" - Italians are as varied in appearance as any west European country's? HammerFilmFan (talk) 04:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: 2 Questions

message: Two of the linked obituaries state he was survived by his wife Johanna. I've left the death section saying he was survived by his wife, but this does contradict the rest of the article which would leave him a divorcee at the time of his death. We could do with an additional source to establish if he was suvived by his ex-wife or if he remarried. Chaz smith (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wife & Death 

message: The beginning section of his film career says “Mitchell quickly rose to leading-man status.”  This is followed by the claim that he co-starred in ‘Cass Timberlane’ (which is not true) and that he co-starred in ‘The Mighty McGurk.’  Mitchell did not co-star in those films, he does not have star-billing for any of those films.  ‘Cass Timberlane’ stars Spencer Tracy, Lana Turner and Zachary Scott.  Those three actors have star-billing.  It would be fine to say that Zachary Scott co-starred with Lana Turned and Spencer Tracy, but Mitchell is 16th billed for that film.  Obviously the person who wrote this section of the article does not know what LEADING MAN STATUS means, or what starring in a movie means.  Mitchell appeared or featured in these movies, but he was not a leading man in any of these.  So the sentence that he quickly rose to leading-man status should be removed, as should the claims that he co-starred in ‘Cass Timberlane’ and ‘The Mighty McGurk.’ 
Mitchell’s first starring role was in 1948’s ‘Leather Gloves.’  He starred in some B-movies for Columbia, but none for MGM.  When Mitchell went to 20th Century Fox he had featured roles in A-Pictures like ‘How to Marry A Millionaire’ and ‘Garden of Evil,’ but he was starring in b-movies like ‘Gorilla at Large.’  I don’t really think starring in those types of movies qualifies as leading-man status…as that implies starring roles in major motion pictures.  It was not until Mitchell moved to European b-movies that he began to get a lot of leading roles.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.234.53 (talk) 09:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Sections on talk pages are entered in chronological order. I have done what you suggest. Philip Cross (talk) 09:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leading man status
Wikipedia talk:Beyond Good and Evil

message: Joke? I oppose this as this assumes good and evil exists and can be defined in an NPOV objective way. --Nnp 13:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed :) --Nnp 15:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Define good and evil

message: I'm not necessarily in favour of this, but as amended by Nnp, it is now suitable for discussion. Runcorn 17:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was reverted though, don't blame me for the current version. I'm not in favor of any statement that involves good or evil, and wikipedia is stated to be NPOV already. Oh well. --Nnp 17:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your suggestion may well have been good, but it was a drastic alteration of the proposal.  It would be best to suggest it separately. Yesterdog 17:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no need to do that though, since NPOV is already a stated goal. --Nnp 17:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfect, then the only _new_ resolution on the table is BG&E.  What do you think of it? Yesterdog 22:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The first step would be to draw attention to this idea. For consensus the more people the better. HighInBC 22:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suitable for discussion 

message: *I am in favor of this proposed guideline, because I think trying to make sure Wikipedia is "good" or "evil" is a waste of time, and a distraction from our common goal of creating an encyclopedia. Jimpartame 17:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: *Unneeded, a bit POV(in regards to nihilism), and mostly covered in WP:IAR. HighInBC 22:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose
Talk:Gray short-tailed opossum

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Northern Three-striped Opossum which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 01:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress
Talk:Phippsburg, Maine

message: I'd really like to see someone with a copy of Fair to the Wind handy expand on the town's history; the pure demographic information is more than a little dry. Also, some current information? Pjmorse 14:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I would love it if you added the elemtary school Osmondo10 (talk) 02:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education Section
Talk:Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum Laude

message: How was the reception of the game?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.72.7.63 (talk) 22:16, August 23, 2007 (UTC) 
:From what I hear, it got mixed reviews. MysticLyman (talk) 03:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reception?

message: The introduction says that this is the seventh game in the series, while later in the article (under the Development heading) it is referred to as the eighth. This should either be explained or made consistent. I can't edit it myself because I don't know which one's right or why there is an inconsistency. --Thegooseking (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency 
Talk:SOCOM U.S. Navy SEALs: Fireteam Bravo

message: This page is in need of some serious editing and updating. I'll do some work on it, and I'll add information about the single player as soon as I'm finished with it.
What the hell happened to this page? Zidane4028 16:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This page has no references sections, it should have one.  Also, it has a few references, but they're links.--NotYouHaha (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Why's 'Militainment' in the See Also section?--NotYouHaha (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: See Also links
Talk:GPhoto

message: Just to let you know.  The purpose of featuring an article is both to point readers to the article and to highlight it to potential contributors.  It will remain the feature for a week or so.  The previous feature was Fórum Internacional Software Livre. Gronky 14:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On [[Portal:Free software]], gPhoto is currently the featured article
Talk:Stowey

message: The Good article nomination for Stowey has failed, for the following reason:
:Same issues as Nempnett Thrubwell - demographics section is very boring, and short sections need merging into longer ones.  Worldtraveller 14:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Good articles|Good Article]] [[Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations|nomination]] has failed 
Talk:Clockwork Knight

message: This article states the Japanese release date as a vague November 1994 based on a western magazine article that feels somewhat anecdotal. The Saturn was released in Japan on November 22 1994, the Wikipedia article for the Saturn states, with sources, that Clockwork Knight wasn't a launch title. Additionally Sega Retro specifies the Japanese release as December 9th 1994 with an archival link to an official Sega webpage. I feel it's fairly conclusive that December 9th 1994 is most likely the real date and should be reflected on the page as such. 213.65.121.238 (talk) 13:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release date correction
Talk:WHO Directory of Medical Schools

message: Does Germany really only have TWO medical schools ?! That cant be right can it?
This list is outdated and inaccurate - WHO is assembling a more authoritative list.
Take a look at http://www.iime.org/database/index.htm instead.Hawkins.tim 
12:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Old discussion

message: I've removed the many external links to the medical schools' websites as per WP:External links and WP:NOT#LINK (in particular, the bits that state "External links should not be used in the body of an article" and that Wikipedia is not an Internet directory). Most of the schools have their own Wikipedia article, and their websites can be linked from there. ~ Danelo 20:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of external links

message: This article is misleading because medical schools have been added that are not in the WHO World Directory of medical schools: also, medical schools that are in the WHO Directory are not necessarily all here.  There is now a reference to WHO's August 2008 electronic publication of the WHO list, with updates to December 2007 World directory of medical schools Final updates through December 2007and a link to the Avicenna Directories.  Readers should refer to the official WHO list and in due course to the Avicenna Directories. Gordoncph (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Potentially misleading article

message: I think the two pages should remain separate (as they discuss different (although similar) lists, as far as I know). However, I strongly support removing the list of medical schools from the WHO Directory of Medical Schools article, as it is woefully incomplete and really not that useful. An external link to the databases is much more appropriate. (EhJJ)TALK 21:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: I think that "WHO" should be removed from the title of this article because it is not the official WHO Directory, which can be seen at http://www.who.int/hrh/wdms/en/ and now moving to the Avicenna Directories http://avicenna.ku.dk/.  Do other users agree? Gordoncph (talk) 10:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Following the move of the lists to the List of medical schools article my proposed change of title is not needed but the article needs minor corrections.Gordoncph (talk) 10:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Have now made corrections referred to aboveGordoncph (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of title proposal
Talk:Refractory

message: This looks officious and is not particularly concordant with Wikipedia's style guidelines and /kinda/ needs to get fixed before this can count as a real article.Koyae (talk) 12:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  RANDOM UPPERCASE HEADINGS 

message: Should there be a mention of refractory diseases and/or a cross-link to the entry on disease?  A refractory disease is one that resists treatment, so there appears to be some common etymology  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dllahr (talk • contribs) 17:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I added an entry for it at Refractory (disambiguation). Wizard191 (talk) 14:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refractory diseases 

message: The entries for acidic and neutral refractory materials seem to contradict each other. Alumina is listed as being both "easily affected by basic materials" and "chemically stable to both acids and bases" in the first two sections. I know these are matters of degree, not of kind, but it still shouldn't be in both sections. Does anyone have a source on acid/base stability of refractories? Kajabla (talk) 13:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chemical composition contradiction 

message: I don't like the definition introduced in diff/840371238 by . I think that it is incorrect to refer to minerals only, because materials may be composite, i.e. composed of multiple minerals. The mention of resistance to pressure and chemical attack seems problematic as well: Although these properties may be desired, the defining property is the resistance to heat. Petr Matas 04:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problematic definition
Talk:Hyperbolic soccerball

message: This page should somehow interface with a broader discussion of ways to visualize hyperbolic space (such as was started at hyperbolic geometry).  Included should be the annular templates at  and more pictures and directions for crochetting hhyperbolic surfaces.  Basically, I'm trying to write an article on methods for visualizing hyperbolic space... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackhmo (talk • contribs) 
:Sure, that's a good idea.  I pointed out some time ago on the talk page for hyperbolic geometry that a lot could be said and maybe a separate article would be good.  I still think that, so if you want to start such an article to "interface" with this article (with an appropriate short summary section at hyperbolic geometry), you're more than welcome!  --C S (Talk) 15:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Antonio Maria Gaspare Sacchini

message: Apart from the points above, Sacchini's dates (in this article) are different from those in Grove. This article has  23 July 1734 to 7 October 1786, whereas Grove has 14 June 1730 to 6 October 1786. - Kleinzach 15:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support a speedy redirect. Mak (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I have now made it a redirect page. - Kleinzach 22:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual inaccuracy
Talk:New York State United Teachers

message: Looking over the edit history i was this very major edit. I really think that the edit should be reverted... but I don't have an strong enough background of their history to find a better balance. MrMacMan 23:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  help with larger edit? 

message: This page is... well... it's in serious condition. The original author did some fantastic work... but sources are what this article needs desperately. Hopefully I'll be able to improve this article. MrMacMan 02:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm gonna start going over this page
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Jay Surdukowski

message: Before any more votes, to the deletists who want to stifle this scholarship (the last person's screen name is so very apt), here are 13 questions. Before another vote to delete, it would be interesting to have your take on specific and general issues about this entry. Some thought before uninformed condemnation... Don't be afraid.
1. How do you feel about the fact that colleges and high schools universally deny Wikipedia any role in the classroom because of its wildly dramatic unreliability as a respectable source of knowledge?
*They're being careful, which is a good thing. Reference materials shouldn't be used indiscriminantly. In any case, Wikipedia is still a very new encyclopedia—Brittanica has quite a but more histroy behind it, which lends it far more weight.--Sean Black (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 13 Respectful Questions for Wikipedians
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/2005-2006 US-Israeli threats to attack Iran

message: So is 17 keeps and 28 deletes "rough consensus" ? It's only 62% - it's a mild majority, it's not consensus. Boud 14:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After examining the opinions offered and the contribution histories of those offering them, a strong consensus for deletion of this article existed.  Feel free to bring this up at deletion review if you wish, but frankly it was pretty cut and dry.  Nandesuka 15:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
File talk:Bampton 3.JPG

message: Im doing a project on bampton and there are alot of contradictions of whether bampton is  village or not can anyone help me?
::I don't know who you are or on which user page to respond, so here goes on this page: I believe Bampton (Oxfordshire) to be a village. Its official website appears to agree. There are some reference to it being a ton, in some websites, but I don't believe that it has a 'charter'. I may be wrong.
::Tending to operate against my own opinion, there is a very large central public building, which suggests town status. Ballista 07:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Agrippina the Elder

message: 1.  Agrippina was not the daughter-in-law of Tiberius.  She was married to Germanicus, so she is the daughter-in-law of Drusus, Germanicus' father.
2.  Since she was married to Tiberius' nephew Germanicus, she is the niece by marriage of Tiberius.  
3.  As the mother of Agrippina the Younger, she is the maternal grandmother of Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, the later Nero.
64.134.68.242 (talk)AW64.134.68.242 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 01:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relations to the first Emperors 

message: An amazing woman. She was ambitious for her children, loyal to her husband and gave Tiberius what he deserved, which was little sympathy. I think that Agrippina had a right to use her relation to Augustus the way she did, because she was very much like him. She was a strong woman and I admire her for how brave she was and how she stood up to Tiberius.
This article is badly written in places, making it a difficult read. Sharonmx5 (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an error. Agrippina the Elder's son, Caligula, became Emperor. The article states that she did not have a son who became Emperor. Shan Dalamani (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: As far as I know the full name of Agrippina the Elder was just Vipsania Agrippina. She had not name Julia, at least I did not find any book calling her Julia. As well she is not referred as "Julia Vipsania Agrippina" in Wikipedia articles on other languages. I am afraid we have some kind of confusion here.
Could you please refer us to a proper source for this name before adding it to the article?  Thanks --Mgar (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As I see, no reference has been provided. So meantime I remove "Julia" from Agrippina the Elder's full name. If a source of "Julia" name will be found, we will discuss it. --Mgar (talk) 10:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Julia Vipsania Agrippina
Talk:Alakazam

message: When people search "Alakazam," would they really be looking for the Pokémon? → C Teng [talk] 14:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A full article is more likely, changed.TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the Pokémon is a more obvious search. Google tests don't lie. Now that I realize it, the redirect should not have been targeting the Alakazam the Great page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem solved, for now. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:American Renaissance (magazine)

message: And e.g. guilt by association:
 have attended American Renaissance conferences and have been seen talking with Taylor...
Many e.g. US politicians willingly met with despots, murderers and worse. They shook hands and discussed policies and provided weapons. So? 
Argumentum ad hitlerum. Zezen (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heavy POV, weasels etc. 

message: User:68.42.245.120 is invited to start a conversation here rather than edit warring. Generalrelative (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP's edits 

message: *
I've moved it here. I don't know why it was being used to support the inclusion New Century's own self description in the lede . I'm not sure what else it could be used for here, but perhaps it could be useful in related articles. --Hipal (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello  You removed several citations and some text. Invasive Spices (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Just some promotional refs that don't demonstrate any encyclopedic value. --Hipal (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wintroub 2020 ref
Talk:Cooking Mama: Cook Off

message: Video game that has not been developed is probably not notable. If achieves notability, then article.14:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are lots of pages of games taht have not been developed yet, and they are all still existing. Just look here for a list. I think that this page should definately not be deleted. -AtionSong 15:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: This game is called "Cooking Mama: Cooking with International Friends"! not "Cooking Mama: Cook Off"!! mattiator 02:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but the name's changed. Read the official press release --El benito 06:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: Can someone look on the web and see if they can find an image of each of the characters? Superjustinbros. 00:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've already been told there is no reason for having all possible information related to the game in wikipedia. This is the second time. Please stop. The information is not relevant. --194.202.236.116 11:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Images of Characters
Talk:Unreal Tournament 2003

message: ("There are several Easter eggs (i.e. a hidden vehicle) to hint of UT2003's future potential; it was obvious that Epic Games had very ambitious plans for the sequel to UT and the stripped-down UT2003 was due mostly to time constraints.")
Thats not information, thats conjecture. No citation is given and it can just as easily be assumed that it was stripped down due to incompetant developers as much as time restraints. This thing needs to be re-written by someone who doesnt think Epic are gods gift to gaming.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.50.255 (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A fan article? 

message: Removed "(However, it should be remembered that many commercial reviewers offer positive reviews to all games, rendering most review ratings meaningless.)" because that's not terribly neutral :P. Sanjay12 09:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: The plot listed on this page is extremely incorrect; if fact, this is Unreal Championship's plot, the game which UT2003 was ported from. Since UC is told to play in the far future which is obviously untrue (the official UT2004 site states UT2003 was in 2302, nine years after UT), this plot is non-canon. The canon plot is here: --89.147.67.118 (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect story
Talk:Kartoo

message: This article has been tagged, and the person who tagged it has not bothered to explain why it was tagged. However, the article does need a cleanup. For one thing it is a stub, and it has not been marked as a stub. It is a shame that there is a clean-up label on this article, as Kartoo is quite a good search engine, and is a bit underrated. It would be nice if there was a more fleshed out, proffessional, and interesting article about the seach engine. Dessydes 14:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the tag? 

message: No explanation is given of "UJIKO" - could it be that these keys are arranged in the form of a W, as in WWW? The only connection with QWERTY is the arrangement of the keys - there is no such thing as a "UJIKO keyboard". — 85.211.2.237 07:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UJIKO 

message: "KartOO has an incredibly advanced GUI. It has a unique color scheme that is a small bit reminiscent of Apple Computer's Aqua interface."
Is this some kind of advertisement? Where is the "incredibly advanced GUI" and the "reminiscent of Apple Computer's Aqua interface" ???  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.78.229.34 (talk) 11:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  advertisement ?