Dataset Viewer
corpus_id
stringclasses 1
value | conversation_id
stringlengths 10
23
| raw_convo
listlengths 0
10
| speaker_metadata
null |
|---|---|---|---|
conversations-gone-awry
|
146743638.12652.12652
|
[
{
"content": "== [WIKI_LINK: WP:COMMONNAME] == I notice that earier that moved wiki_link to Bill Chen citing wiki_link , then you reverted this change, Bill Chen doesn't commonly go by William, his book is even penned as Bill Chen. From what I read in WP:COMMONNAME PatrikR seems to be correct, Examples given are names such as: *wiki_link (not wiki_link) *wiki_link (not wiki_link) I think this revert may have been a mistake unless you know otherwise? ▪◦▪",
"role": "Sirex98"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
143890867.11926.11926
|
[
{
"content": "==List of slang terms for poker hands== No more than two editors advocated deletion. Greatestrowerever and maybe Kymacpherson. That's not a clear consensus for deletion. Cheers,",
"role": "WilyD"
},
{
"content": "That simply isn't true. If you read the comments, you'll find it's actually 2 keep, 4 transwiki, 2 delete (more or less). The ''comments'' favour no consensus/transwiki. The \"votes\" favour delete, but voting is evil, of course... Somehow, I suspect you may wish to participate in wiki_link discussion. Cheers,",
"role": "2005"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
127296808.516.516
|
[
{
"content": "== Could you stop reverting my corrections == If you have problems with my edits to the 4WD page please let me know, do not just revert the edits. Although the 4WD article is very accurate the introduction is riddled with errors, which I corrected. I think it is everyone's best interests to make Wiki pages as accurate as possible and the Four Wheel Drive article is not a gleaming example of this. i.e. All-wheel drive is just a marketing term invented to sell primarily on-road 4WD-type cars This is completely inaccurate AWD is no JUST a marketing term. AWD is very different from 4WD and I explained the differences in my edits. There are also blatant contradictions in this introduction as well. So please instead of immediately reverting my edits tell me what your disagreement is. If you feel that my edit was inaccurate the please let me know why so this can be resolved. Thank You",
"role": "H20h0us391"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
144643838.1236.1236
|
[
{
"content": "==Regarding edits to [WIKI_LINK: Talk:George W. Bush]== Please stop removing and altering other editors' comments. What appeared to be valid concern is quickly descending into trolling, and if you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Stop it. -",
"role": "AuburnPilot"
},
{
"content": "external_link is trolling, as is removing other people's comments. Look, Wikipedia is built on consensus, and consensus has it that we use American style for American subjects. End of story. Any more complaint about trolling about this topic and I'll report you myself.",
"role": "Billzilla"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
66813686.23567.23567
|
[
{
"content": "==WP:RS== Please stop including disreputable sources for this article. Wikipedia policy is quite clear on this matter blogs and other websites which do not employ editorial oversight of authors' work are not permitted as sources here. Please stop adding blogs.",
"role": "Morton devonshire"
},
{
"content": "The American Prospect article should stay - American Prospect easily meets wiki_link. The Cooperative Research Project link should be nuked and should stay nuked - I see no evidence that it's a reliable source. Factcheck.org is reliable enough that the Vice President of the United States (incorrectly) cited it in his debate as an authoritative source; they have a good reputation, and their very ''purpose'' is to engage in rigorous fact-checking. The commondreams.org reposting of the Joe Wilson article is a verbatim copy; I just checked myself. I'd nuke the Alternet.org posting; quite frankly, unless they're reposting information from AP, Reuters, the NYTimes, or something else, they're even less reliable than Fox News - which takes some doing, I will say. Furthermore, it's an edited transcript; we have no way of knowing what was edited. The source I'm least certain of is the Philip Giraldi interview; I'm not entirely certain of the relevance. *",
"role": "Commodore Sloat"
},
{
"content": "Actually, especially with Alternet, we ''can't'' assume good faith; we need to do exactly the opposite. We need to examine sources critically, according to the guidelines on wiki_link. Were it to be a verbatim copy, perhaps we could accept it as a source (''perhaps'' being absolutely critical), but because it's edited and doesn't contain information on how it's been edited, and because it comes from a notoriously unreliable source, it can't really be trusted. And, again, I question the relevance of the Giraldi interview. *",
"role": "Commodore Sloat"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
68000691.25417.25417
|
[
{
"content": "==Iran caught smuggling uranium== This story about Iran supports the concern that Iraq was trying to get uranium from Africa. It also confirms the wiki_link saying President Bush comments about Iraq seeking uranium from Africa were \"well-founded.\" It also points out that wiki_link is either incompetent or liar or both.",
"role": "RonCram"
},
{
"content": "But it certainly blows holes in the argument by Joseph Wilson that no isolated country could get hold of uranium from Africa. But of course, we knew Wilson was a liar long ago. He found out Saddam was looking for uranium in 1999 and then wrote his op-ed piece saying there was no evidence Saddam was looking for uranium.",
"role": "Commodore Sloat"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
95100799.58.76
|
[
{
"content": "I agree with Idleguy. 8-Pass charlie is a very insignificant component of the airwar. I am sure as we go along there will be hundreds of small stubs that will be created. They all cannot be linked at the top of the article. You can however link them in the links / references etc. 3 Squadron also falls in the same bracket. where will we stop? We will end up listing all the IAF and PAF squadrons that ever took part in the war in \"See also\" or \"Main article\" etc. Links to such stubs / secondary articles should go in list of links at the bottom of the page.",
"role": "Jaiiaf"
},
{
"content": "The only consensus here, as Jaiiaf has also concurred is that it would lead to a plethora of see also links. As if the see also is a required section in the first place. Few, if any of the FA articles posses see also links. With immediate effect I'm removing the see also section since it adds little and everything is linked properly in the article. You are acting against the consensus here, i.e. it's insignificant. I can appreciate that you've taken the time to create the article, but that doesn't elevate it to the significance to be mentioned in the main war. Like i said, add it to the PAF history page. I find you haven't done that. Thanks.",
"role": "Rueben lys"
},
{
"content": "You are somehow missing the larger picture. You yourself state that it is an \"interesting trivia\". I would agree with the assessment that it is trivial. The see also section is not the hallmark of a good article and thus I think it should go. I am perplexed that you should re-add the entire 'See also' section - whose links to the 47 war, siachen etc. are properly embedded in the article - just so that this one \"trivia\" stub of yours can be linked. Isn't that a tad too much of over stretching? If you want it to be improved then use the right stub tags and request someone to improve it. Simply linking it in the see also section of a war is hardly the right way to improve articles. There are 101 such trivial/non-trivial stuff from the war, not including the battles etc. Should we start a ballooning list of links to articles of minor importance attached to this article?",
"role": "Rueben lys"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
14969685.9097.9097
|
[
{
"content": "== The \"neutrals\" who don't have the knowledge == Firstly I'm not one of the \"gang\" nor is AreJay or anyone here as Grace seems to put it. Secondly the \"neutral\" view itself is not really well educated nor do they properly read the threads or history of the pages concerned. The neutral sources and some biased views are already given in the said articles. Yet Grace is asking that this user and his sockpuppets come to the talk page and show his sources. I wonder why a vandal would frequent a talk page? I don't see him coming and if anyone believes he is going to discuss this openly is naive. Secondly the problem isn't only to this article but ALL articles related to the India pakistan wars. Incase these neutrals don't have time to read or understand here's the lowdown: wiki_link keeps deleting the info on the bengali atrocities wiki_link just read it dammit. wiki_link more vandalism wiki_link copyvio images and copyvio text from biased sources wiki_link blatant copyvio images and jingoistic text wiki_link minor changes to suit his POV. Incase it has not been noticed he has a pattern of simply reverting to his previous version without engaging in discussion like we are doing here. So the fact is while we talk about this and try to resolve he jolly well seems to care less for Wikipedia or its neutral stance and simply reverts to his POV. In those articles too, users like myself and other different users have reverted it to the non-chauvinistic versions time & again. is asking for this vandal to come to the talk page and discuss the 1971 war which the miscreant refuses to do. Yet nothing is being done about it or his blatant cut and copy of text from the net. If anyone still has any lingering doubts then search by selecting the sentences used to describe his photos on google and u will get an exact match down to the last punctuation error. To avoid such future disputes I suggest that people should have a user account incase they want to break the 3 revert rule. that way it would be easier to block the user. Even now one of his sockpuppets Napoleon12 can be blocked.",
"role": "Idleguy"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
158714043.10458.10458
|
[
{
"content": "== vandalism == im sorry to have been mistaken but whoever wrote that article made a miscalculation when determining the speed from knots to kph, 1 knot is 1.85 of a mile. therefore 10 knots is 18.5 miles per hour. am i not correct?",
"role": "Can.u.spel"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
156725805.9367.0
|
[
{
"content": "== Vandalism? == Why is is vandalism to add references to recent events that anyone can find after a moment's googling? You some PR guy for the college or what?",
"role": "Nautilogos"
},
{
"content": "Sorry about the shannanigans. I've never thought about another account before and would quite honestly frown upon it. Its just I don't like my edit count rocketing when I am in the middle of doing repetitive edits. Many people judge the WIkipedians by number of edits as final. Maybe I should carry on with mine for all edits and pretty soon it'll be in the top 3. even for those bot type edits that are made by the second .",
"role": "Greswik"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
240149353.16332.16332
|
[
{
"content": "== SocialVibe == I was a bit disgruntled you recently deleted my article on SocialVibe, especially just after it had been patrolled. I am a user of the site who was interested in its message and felt compelled to look further into it (seriously, my sources are the first couple things that popped up after a google search). I am a bit confused why a well written and documented article (my first) about an up and coming social networking website with well over 25,000 subscribers and almost 150,000 unique visitors each month (http://www.crunchbase.com/company/socialvibe) is any less relevant than say, Sandis Valters whose brilliantly written article reveals that he is a Latvian guard who plays for ASK Riga. Having seen such articles before, I did not feel the need to \"justify\" my article; however, I am new at editing/creating wikipedia articles, did I do something incorrectly? Please respond as I would like to know what I did wrong...",
"role": "Ferociouslettuce"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
241131342.18768.18523
|
[
{
"content": "== [WIKI_LINK: Vandalyze] == I want this topic to be UNprotected, so I suggest you do so. Do you wanna go to war with me?",
"role": "Wangtopgun"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
271340377.69106.69106
|
[
{
"content": "== Honors section == This section is a mere three lines long. Would anyone object to integrating it into the biographical sections of the article?",
"role": "Skomorokh"
},
{
"content": "Yeah, I moved it to its own section because it was part of the \"Early Life\" section (!). Feel free to integrate it elsewhere.",
"role": "SteveWolfer"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
271266337.66158.66158
|
[
{
"content": "== Bill Vallicella's blog quote == The quote from Vallicella's blog in the criticism section is out of line. For one thing, it is from something titled: \"Is Ayn Rand a Good Philosopher?\" Of course we don't want to put that title into the text (as i have tried) because we don't want anyone to get the impression that Ayn Rand was a bad philosopher, because even that would imply she was in fact a philosopher, which is of course heresy. So we avoid in his quote the fact he does call her a philosopher, but leave in the statement \"limited understanding\" which of course Bill Vallicella could not really know. She might have had deep understanding, but an inability to articulate herself, for instance. The quote is a punch below the belt which may be fine for a blog he's writing a blog after all but should we be quoting from blog-speak in this article? Not to mention the fact that Vallicella is an American academic, which of course makes anything he has to say on Rand suspect to start with.",
"role": "Stevewunder"
},
{
"content": "Right. I'll delete it again and we'll see what happens.",
"role": "SteveWolfer"
},
{
"content": "it does not indicate the seriousness with which she is being taken. if it were more serious, bill would not use the phrase \"limited understanding\". the tone is full of vitriol, not professionalism.",
"role": "Snowded"
},
{
"content": "The use of the term \"vitriol\" is arrant nonsense. However I am open to an equivalent source which deals with her reading on Kant. We have here a reputably philosopher, addressing (largely with dismissal) a core aspect of her approach. That is important. If you have another CoM, happy to consider it.",
"role": "ChildofMidnight"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
200053269.20798.20798
|
[
{
"content": "== Please do not delete material from article Talk pages == With external_link, you deleted (rather than archived) a discussion from the wiki_link Talk page, which external_link WP:Talk. Please don't do that anymore. (In fact, since among the comments you deleted were some that were only a few hours old, it would not have been appropriate even to archive them.)",
"role": "NCdave"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
200248222.21224.21224
|
[
{
"content": "== Fictional Multiverses == I notice that you and I have been going back and forth on the Fictional Multiverses section of the Multiverse page. I'm wondering exactly what your problem is with what I am writing. All I am doing is trying to make sure that Marvel Comics gets some mention (preferably equal coverage) on the topic of comic book multiverses. I even took out unnecessary information and replaced it with a link to another page about it the specific topics. Could you please talk to me about WHY you keep deleting any mention of Marvel comics? If you have a problem with WHAT I wrote, surely you can come up with something better (or some improvement on my writing) that talks about how Marvel uses the concept of the Multiverse.",
"role": "BigBang616"
},
{
"content": "I'm just trying to be fair here, you're suggesting that I not add to an article without citing, etc. Well, how about you not DELETE AN ENTIRE SECTION without first discussing it. You've done that twice now. All I want you to do is (a) NOT DELETE THE ENTIRE SECTION, fictional multiverses do need some mention, and there is nothing wrong with the way there were mentioned before you deleted it, hence, I undid what you did and (b) talk this through, perhaps come up with some compromise about what to do. As I mentioned before Wikipedia prefers that information be presented poorly rather than not at all. So perhaps we can find a better way to CONTINUE presenting the information in a better way, because this back and forth between you and I is getting really ridiculous. And I don't want some bull about you sending me to WIKIPEDIA GUIDES, I've read them and know what they say. I read them way before you pointed them out and way before I edited the section. I still think the information contained within the section is pertinent to the situation, what problem do you have with the article discussing at the end a few paragraphs on multiverses in fiction, explicitly stating not only at the section header but also within the section itself that it's fiction. Everything I said was true, I even took out the things I said that would have needed references, basically all that is stated within these paragraphs is that the concept of the multiverse is used and, in some cases, how. Why do you insist on making this a big deal? Do you have some sort of personal vendetta against me for undoing your revisions? Keep in mind that WIKIPEDIA isn't yours, it's everybody's and you don't get to make all the big decisions, if you want to make a change this drastic you should discuss it with some other users first, rather than just doing it. And considering I seem to be the only user who cares enough to do something about it, don't you think you should discuss this rationally before doing something like this. Look, I don't know if you get it, but AS I KEEP MENTIONING, I would like to discuss this before you do anything drastic YET AGAIN. And yes, the Official Handbook does indeed count as a source, apparently you didn't check, or care to check, out the source. Also, it is a work in progress, I will eventually fill out the sources more thoroughly, and will continue to restore the section no matter how many times you delete it. So, until you're willing to discuss this before deleting it again, I will see you then.",
"role": "Hrafn"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
193565323.8199.8199
|
[
{
"content": "== Never seen this before, you might find it interesting == I've never seen wiki_link kind of reaction to an editor (but I don't spend much time on AN/I). Inspectre could do with some similar attention perhaps.",
"role": "WLU"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
193002106.7341.7341
|
[
{
"content": "==Creationism== You have vandalized a perfectly valid and referenced, and not irrelevant, addition to these pages. Please try not to do this again.",
"role": "Mike0001"
},
{
"content": "There was no OR there!",
"role": "Hrafn"
},
{
"content": "There are no reliable sources for creationism, so it figures there would be an article on it! LoL",
"role": "Hrafn"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
322161962.9817.9817
|
[
{
"content": "==Malia== This campaign by some to speedily close discussion is just wikilawyering and causing disruption. All we want is a good article about Malia. I've written in ANI about why she is notable, even those oppose admit she is \"marginally notable\". Try to suggest that Mrs. Obama gets her fame from Barack and see how far that bad logic takes you.",
"role": "SRMach5B"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
323279527.11312.11312
|
[
{
"content": "== November 2009 == Please do not use talk pages for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are wiki_link. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting wiki_link and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See wiki_link for more information. Thank you.",
"role": "Otterathome"
},
{
"content": "[MENTION: JamesBWatson Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Pepper (magazine)]",
"role": "Milowent"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
408375548.1540.1540
|
[
{
"content": "== [WIKI_LINK: Cambro-Norman] Lord of [WIKI_LINK: Gower (Lordship)|Gower] == Any objection to changing “Captured in 1290 by the son of wiki_link, the wiki_link Lord of wiki_link ...” to “Captured in 1290 by the son of wiki_link, the wiki_link Lord of wiki_link ...”. He was, after all, the grandson of wiki_link.",
"role": "Daicaregos"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
623925770.1777.0
|
[
{
"content": "== Non-breaking spaces == I replaced some of these which had been removed from this article and added a couple more. These prevented things like \" John XXII\" and \"2 November\" breaking at their spaces at the end of lines. I understand these uses are recommended on wiki_link. Another editor disagreed and kept reverting my edits. I can understand people not thinking this is absolutely necessary and may not wish to spend time on it when editing but why remove what is only a (small) improvement? With the use of smaller screens now on tablets and smartphones there is far more likelihood of lines breaking at confusing places so more NBSPs in these appropriate places are becoming even more useful. I welcome discussion and await some form of consensus.",
"role": "Dougatwiki"
},
{
"content": "The point you seem to have missed, Eric, is that I was replacing the NBSPs that were in the article when it was FA reviewed, but Ohconfucius arbitrarily removed on 1 Sep. I did add acouple of extras to help for the reasons above. What is your problem with that?",
"role": "Eric Corbett"
},
{
"content": "Have you read wiki_link ? Just because something is not ''necessary'' does not mean it is not ''useful'' or ''helpful''. What's your problem?",
"role": "Eric Corbett"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
387118463.11252.11252
|
[
{
"content": "== SNL (season 36) == Please do not remove sources from articles. Sources don't expire; things like participants in an episode must be sourced. A statement of \"confirmed on air\" is not a source. Please read wiki_link and wiki_link for additional information. •",
"role": "Acps110"
},
{
"content": "That's not the way it's done on Wikipedia; wiki_link! If you remove a source, anyone can remove the people from the episodes as being unsourced. •",
"role": "Jasonbres"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
408841323.14594.14594
|
[
{
"content": "Where's your source? -",
"role": "Jasonbres"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
155716783.14696.14696
|
[
{
"content": "==Images in [WIKI_LINK: Intelligent design]== Please do not add the book cover images back into the article. If something comes of the Fair Use Review, they may be added back in then. Thanks",
"role": "Nv8200pa"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
155594817.14064.14064
|
[
{
"content": "== BLP and 3R == As stated in my edit summaries. wiki_link does not apply in wiki_link violations. *Possibly BLP-violating, is the same as BLP-violating as far as I can tell - and that is an [WP:3R#Exceptions|Exception]] to 3RR. Please allow a discussion to take place and '''reach a consensus'''. So far all we have had is a sparring match consisting of around 5-6 people which has reached a practical stalemate. I am requesting protection, and a RFC so we can develop consensus.",
"role": "ZayZayEM"
},
{
"content": "*OR is BLP-violating. Please allow the RFC to take place to allow wider community commentary. I will abide by consensus.",
"role": "ConfuciusOrnis"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
95273157.1954.1954
|
[
{
"content": "== Commons Upload OfficialPhoto.jpg == When you uploaded to commons, what license did you select?",
"role": "Alan.ca"
},
{
"content": "Ok, I see that, why did you revert my copyright violation tag? I think now that we have the two pages copyright Herman Chung, the image needs to be removed or a release needs to be obtained from Herman Chung. At a minimum I think the House of Commons staff need to make a proper release to the email address of the foundation. We've come this far in this argument, I think we should complete it properly. Thoughts?",
"role": "Ryulong"
},
{
"content": "I did write them a letter last week on Dec 14/06, if my past experience is any indication it will most likely take a month for an answer. Doesn't anyone have another photograph?",
"role": "Ryulong"
},
{
"content": "Thanks for performing that edit in the article and getting involved. :",
"role": "Ryulong"
},
{
"content": "*Thanks for finding an alternate image for the wiki_link article. It's a great relief as it removes one more point of conflict on this issue.",
"role": "Ryulong"
},
{
"content": "Ryulong, I've already found that the Office of the Prime Minister did indeed have permission to distribute this freely. Please see the talks page of the image.",
"role": "Ryulong"
},
{
"content": "IMO, the image isn't worth the dispute. I only have concern about it because I figure it's better to get the right image now then to use an improper image and have it removed later after the subject is deceased or out of the public eye. I don't know why they're so vehement about being right or wrong, it's just a photo. I will continue the discussion on commons, but I suspect it will be deleted as there seems to be 3 independent copyright claims and none of them state free use.",
"role": "Ryulong"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
83160877.1204.1204
|
[
{
"content": "== Sigh == Ok now I gotta explain it to you as well. I originally created \"Who is Black\" and someone else changed it to \"definitions of black people\" without an explanation. Still there is no explanation to this day. For some reason you and others seem to adhere to using \"Definitions of Black People\" and ignore the obvious unfairness of doing so. I've covered all the bases, I've explained my position, I've sought arbitration, and I've not received a proper response from anyone. At this point it is wrong and totally out of Wikipedian rules to continue to change the original title.",
"role": "Zaphnathpaaneah"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
318141830.5953.5953
|
[
{
"content": "== October 2009 == You have been '''wiki_link''' from editing for to prevent further wiki_link caused by your engagement in an wiki_link. During a dispute, you should first try to wiki_link and seek wiki_link. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek wiki_link, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request wiki_link. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may wiki_link by adding the text {{unblock|''your reason here''}} below. at wiki_link, per a complaint at wiki_link.",
"role": "EdJohnston"
},
{
"content": "You can be unblocked, even now, if you will promise to stop edit warring on baseball articles. In the discussion so far, neither one of you has expressed the slightest willingness to compromise.",
"role": "Yankees10"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
325209973.9766.9766
|
[
{
"content": "== Minor leaguers == Please see wiki_link and wiki_link. Athlete states, \"People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport,\" wiki_link is professional, the players get paid making it a profession. BB Notability states \"the article must cite published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject,\" and they do. These are the guidelines I follow, do you have something that states the contrary?",
"role": "Halvorsen brian"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
184206224.2971.2971
|
[
{
"content": "== Lucky You! == Hi there, I wonder if I could grab your expertise. I've been working on wiki_link, which you might know started its seventh series yesterday. One of the main characters, Jonny, has been written out but his section in wiki_link refers to events going way back to the beginning. Another user wants to move his section into a new \"Former characters\" section, and I am resisting, on the basis that there are few characters in the series, he is central to it, and it makes no sense to me to have a separate section considering that this will probably be the last series anyway. I see wiki_link characters get moved into a complete new article, but \"Two Pints\" is a lot smaller in scope. Having failed to find any guidelines for this, would you mind letting me have your opinion? Thanks. ''''''",
"role": "Rodhullandemu"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
169077115.2098.2098
|
[
{
"content": "== I'm Blue song == Why did you feel the need to undo my changes? Do you want me to GIVE you the acapella of it so you can see for yourself my friend? \"this original research is worse than the other original research, it also contains a personal interpretation of the meaning - this needs a source if it to be readded\" I will personally pitch down the acapella and add just the sample of the chorus for you just to make you happy.",
"role": "Extremador"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
51451175.46444.46444
|
[
{
"content": "== Blocked == You have been blocked for three hours for incivility. We cannot tolerate these types of edits:",
"role": "Kungfuadam"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
44473697.13334.13334
|
[
{
"content": "== March 19 == I don't know what's gotten into you, but the behavior is unacceptable, so You have been wiki_link from editing for wiki_link of Wikipedia. The block is for a period of 1 week. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires.",
"role": "Nlu"
},
{
"content": "Personal attacks. I think your responses to Rschen7754's messages were thoroughly unacceptable, and in addition, your edits that added \"profit\" to wiki_link can't be construed as anything but vandalism. If you have good explanations for your behavior, please go ahead and give them.",
"role": "SPUI"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
463673734.2155.2155
|
[
{
"content": "== When was Zainab married? == How can anyone be so sure they were married from 1977 until 1983 or whatever it was? Just because she was 15, doesn't mean she married in the year she turned 15, it could have been the year she turned 16. Are we even sure she was born in 1962? How do we know she married Masood in 1983? ––",
"role": "AnemoneProjectors"
},
{
"content": "Have they ever celebrated a wedding anniversary? I bet someone remembers. ––",
"role": "Alex250P"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
465151872.2417.2417
|
[
{
"content": "== Zainab's new name == Shouldn't her name be Zainab Yusef and not Zainab Khan?",
"role": "Arjoccolenty"
},
{
"content": "The Khans are clearly not as traditional as the Masoods, or Afia would have been called Afia Yusef. We already know this! And what GS said. Watch the show properly P ––",
"role": "Bluebolt94"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
195353398.23337.23337
|
[
{
"content": "== Balance in the article == This article suffers relentlessly from individuals with strong personal viewpoints attempting to drag in material to skew it towards their own point of view (and also suppressing material which does not do so). Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor is it a forum for expression of opinion. The NPOV policy lays down that facts about opinion are acceptable, but only where authoritative individuals or clearly defined populations holding those opinions can be identified, and even then, they should only be represented giving due weight to the size of those populations. Much of what is in the article currently is clearly opinion rather than fact. For example:",
"role": "DaveApter"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
195353398.24272.23337
|
[
{
"content": "===Office closures=== This item seems to me to be a minor issue which might merit mention in a 500 page book on the subject, is of no significance to justify its inclusion in an article this size. Organisations of this scale do open and close branch offices from time to time - so what? The operations in France and Sweden were both minute and no doubt marginally viable. Both suffered defamatory attacks from sensationalistic journalists.",
"role": "DaveApter"
},
{
"content": "The references are still bad refs. They are opinion at best. The section should not be in article.",
"role": "Pax Arcane"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
370760170.48343.48343
|
[
{
"content": "==Gill's changes/arguments and focus on what matters== After looking over many of the recently posted comments and explanations, I'm getting the feeling the discussion is getting a bit off track. So let's focus on the actual issues of Gill's contested edit and suggestions and how to resolve then. So let me restate, what the issue are and what they are not. The following points were problematic to some of the other editors: *p1) large editorial changes without consent in highly contested article (something that ideally should be avoided *p2) deletion of formal Bayes solution in a 3 step experiment *p3) lack of citations and possible wiki_link *p4) style/language which might not be optimal for an encyclopedic article (imho at times it reads a bit like polemic or essay which is ok for journal articles but usually not appropriate for WP, see the use of adjectives for instance) The following things however were not really problematic, since so far there wasn't any serious disagreement: *n1) (mathematical) correctness of the odds approach (nobody suggested it is not correct) *n2) odds approach in the article (nobody really claims that the odds approach cannot be in the article, the issue was with using it as a replacement for formal bayes solution, but that can be discussed in p2) *n3) game theoretic aspects in the article (nobody really claims it cannot be a part of the article) So I suggest to leave n1,n2,n3 alone and focus on p1, p2, p3, p4, which for the most part can easily be fixed.",
"role": "Kmhkmh"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
370454238.40262.40262
|
[
{
"content": "== New Round of Reverts == Rick Block, what do you have against an accurate quotation from a source? Why remove a less-ambiguous sourced statement and replace it with your personal interpretation?",
"role": "Glkanter"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
144384425.3276.3276
|
[
{
"content": "==Rambutan== The irony of Rambutan's actions is that I do not know of a single case where he did not revert to the best available version. He has been a vigilent defender of the Doctor Who articles. The problem is that he has been too vigilent. The edit in question was a small revert, and a correct one. But it was still one of four in 24 hours, from someone who should know better.",
"role": "Phil Sandifer"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
157901643.10900.10900
|
[
{
"content": "== Archival == Could you consider wiki_link your talkpage? It's getting a bit long!! -)",
"role": "TreasuryTag"
},
{
"content": "I did say ''long'' rather than ''large'' - it's tiresome to scroll down to the end, when a bot can automatically do it, or you could manually do it once a month. I'd recommend what I do, - follow those instructions just linked to to do it. Cheers,",
"role": "Scarian"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
226534237.12302.12302
|
[
{
"content": "== == Hi, why are the letters used in this Hercules poster considered Greek? Most notable the ''e''. I see this very often with Greek restaurants here in the Netherlands. Does anyone have an explanation?",
"role": "Mallerd"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
228260381.12384.12384
|
[
{
"content": "==[WIKI_LINK: Nabla]== Does the wiki_link symbol deserve any mention?",
"role": "BethelRunner"
},
{
"content": "And don't forget the snack crackers called Goldfish, which are modeled on the lower-case of the letter Alpha. ''''",
"role": "Macrakis"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
313175753.27706.27706
|
[
{
"content": "===Section break===",
"role": "Ryulong"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
318028459.38631.38631
|
[
{
"content": "==History== To quote User:Ryulong, please don't change long-standing passages by complete deletion without discussing it first. These paragraphs have been there for years. I will try to add more of a transition. : I have included MiamiDolphins3's edits and moved the consensus history section from back to the main page. Thank you all for reviewing it.",
"role": "Racepacket"
},
{
"content": "I assure you that I am not \"reverting [you] for the sake of reverting [you].\" The history of the institution does not have to be tied to different Presidents and their priorities. This is apparently a matter of writing style. Flow is not as important in a history section as is the overall organizing principle, in this case chronological. : Rather than engage in an edit war over what is obviously inaccurate information, I have moved the history section to and suggest we forge a consensus there.",
"role": "Ryulong"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
185302851.9838.9838
|
[
{
"content": "== Hud? == Could it be a clever ref to wiki_link or Heads Up Display, considering how the film looks it is very plausible —Preceding wiki_link comment added by That's what I was thinking. After all, the movie is like a first-person shooter, but without the gun (fyi I thought it was a good movie). : I think he was referring to how many cameras have a sort of HUD. —Preceding wiki_link comment added by",
"role": "24.107.202.65"
},
{
"content": "put it under some kind of trivia or notes section.",
"role": "Calor"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
185229633.7636.7636
|
[
{
"content": "==Lindsay Lohan== How come no one has mentioned that Lindsay Lohan is in the film? —Preceding wiki_link comment added by",
"role": "212.137.33.65"
},
{
"content": "I believe he is calling LL a monster. —Preceding wiki_link comment added by",
"role": "Supergodzilla2090"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
336792863.10323.10323
|
[
{
"content": "== Global warning (sic) == Thank you for your kind reminder that the GW article is under article probation. I wonder if you could let be know whether this probation applies equally to AGW believers and AGW sceptics. I notice that the greatest contributor to the section 'Climate history destroyed' after the archiving is yourself. I presume that it is my contribution to this section that prompted your message.",
"role": "Martin Hogbin"
},
{
"content": "So it is just a global warning.",
"role": "Tony Sidaway"
},
{
"content": "I'm OK with you re-factoring my TalkPage, but if you're going to do that, I think I should insist you put a stop to the re-factoring that goes on at other TalkPages, much of which reflects really badly on the articles where it's going on.",
"role": "2over0"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
145897597.3994.3994
|
[
{
"content": "== GMT/UTC == Feel free to revert me, the only reason I did it was for clarification for people that may not realise the two are the same, since UTC is used on Wikipedia. -)",
"role": "Deskana"
},
{
"content": "Although \"wiki_link\" is sometimes interpreted as being adjusted for daylight savings, and UTC is never adjusted. -",
"role": "Tony Sidaway"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
60188809.28844.28844
|
[
{
"content": "== Spoiler conflict == (removed silliness)",
"role": "Randall Brackett"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
53559800.44580.44580
|
[
{
"content": "==Trolling over signatures== What you wrongly call trolling I call a move of solidarity. You were in the wrong, accept it and move on. The user and myself are under no obligation to remove any images from signatures that are not disruptive. external_link",
"role": "JohnnyBGood"
},
{
"content": "That wasn't condecending. And for the record, you cannot object to the image in my signature as there is no solid basis for it in policy or guidelines beyond that you don't like it, which last time I checked isn't a valid reason to remove it. Have a nice day. external_link",
"role": "Tony Sidaway"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
26815453.51996.51996
|
[
{
"content": "== Unprotection of [WIKI_LINK: Freemasonry] == I wanted to point out that I disagree with your unprotection of wiki_link, and why. Yes, this is a wiki, but the original intent of protecting the page was to leave it as such pending arbitration resolution. We've in fact already had anonymous vandalism external_link, less than ten hours after it was unprotected.",
"role": "MSJapan"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
26894863.52416.1542
|
[
{
"content": "==Request== Would you mind writing up a short summary of what you feel you learned/what the consensus was of the RfC? I feel there is the possibility that further action might be needed, but I think it would be helpful for the community to hear what you think of what has transpired, whether you feel anything will change/is in need of changing, etc. Thanks.",
"role": "Agriculture"
},
{
"content": "I did, the results are rather unclear, and it appears as if you take the entire thing lightly. I'm hoping this is not the case. It would help matters in the community greatly if you would write a short summary of the entire process.",
"role": "Tony Sidaway"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
15835089.3408.3408
|
[
{
"content": "== page protection == I am willing to unprotect if I have any reason to believe that this war will end. Since I locked it on Mike's version (arbitrarily) can he provide some support for his version?",
"role": "Guettarda"
},
{
"content": "I realise that. My question is, can you track down a source for that? If you can, this is simple to resolve. If you can't, it's more problematic.",
"role": "Mike Garcia"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
15832773.3019.3019
|
[
{
"content": "== Hypnotize / Mezmerize album changeup == Just because Mike Garcia believes this to be true does not mean it should be in the article. I follow SOAD news very carefully and this has never been an issue, let alone being a confirmed fact as Mike Garcia seems to think it is. I would like to see a source or have this deleted.",
"role": "66.36.136.123"
},
{
"content": "Why do you refuse to address the issue?",
"role": "Mike Garcia"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
27909300.43483.43483
|
[
{
"content": "== Please do not blank factural information == Please do not remove factural information and references from the article wiki_link. Please pay attention that any information ypou add should be confirmed by creadible sources. Original research or your privat opinion is not appropriate for the Wikipedia articles.",
"role": "AndriyK"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
27733774.39983.39983
|
[
{
"content": "== Please don't misinform other users by the comments to your edits == I would like to poin out once more that your comments misinform the Wikipedia users. There is actibe discussion going on at wiki_link. Consensus is not reached yet. Why do you lie saying \"restoring consenus\" replaced the article by your extremely biased, Russian Orthodox POV version? If you agree abot something with Ghirlandajo, Kuban Kazak or alike, this is not a consensus yet. Pay attention to other user's opinion. Or you just like the edit war?",
"role": "AndriyK"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
338290689.2590.2590
|
[
{
"content": "== What is this? == What is external_link? I have a right to remove content I added to an article, since no one else has contributed significantly to it. Please revert yourself.",
"role": "William S. Saturn"
},
{
"content": "There is a guideline (or at least one time there was) that says an author has the right to blank what they have written.",
"role": "Dabomb87"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
258343447.8293.8293
|
[
{
"content": "==Stalking, Part 2== Okay, I have warned you before about the stalking, but it doesn't seem to have had any effect. I suggest you stop ''now'' because I really don't want to have to make a complaint against you.",
"role": "Deb"
},
{
"content": "That's not what you've been doing. All you are doing is following me round the biography articles - it's very clear that you just go to my contributions list and look to see what biography articles I've worked on, then you go and look to see if you can find something wrong with them. And in fact, you admitted above that you only de-link dates when you feel like it. While we're about it, if you insist on replying on ''your'' talk page instead of mine, please place a note on mine to say that you've done so - so that I don't have to keep looking at your page to see if you've replied.",
"role": "Dabomb87"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
45234304.62193.62193
|
[
{
"content": "== Claim that early Iranians \"settled\" in Khuzestan == SC, that's just plain wrong. The technology that led to the expansion of the Indo-European languages is believed to have been horse-drawn chariots used in warfare. The originators were peoples of the steppe, and the technology, and associated language, seems to have spread from the steppes down into the Afghan plateau (per Witzel) and thence into India and Persia. The Medes and Persians seem to have been peoples of the central Iranian plateau, speaking Proto-Iranian languages, and from ''there'' spreading down the Karun valley into the Mesopotamian plains. They didn't \"settle\" in Elam they conquered it! You've distorted history to make a nationalist point. I don't think that you'll find ANY historian who would, or would have, endorsed your version.",
"role": "Zora"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
34475659.60604.60604
|
[
{
"content": "== Proposal == The Human Rights section is too similar to the wiki_link entry. I proposed merging the content with this entry.",
"role": "Ahwaz"
},
{
"content": "The wiki_link refers to a UNCHR report on the forced confiscation of land owned by Laks, a Persian tribe, but there is little material available to expand on this. Perhaps you can do some research on this, instead of vandalising articles and complaining about others' work.",
"role": "Hajjagha"
},
{
"content": "Hajjagha: None of the content I have written has been anti-Persian. In fact, I have been at pains to show that the Arab unrest is not a communal Arab-Persian conflict but related to dissatisfaction with government policy. If there is any anti-Persian racism, please modify the article and change the phrases or insert counter-arguments instead of simply deleting content that others' have spent time working on.",
"role": "Hajjagha"
},
{
"content": "The parts I deleted were an unsubstantiated rant about ethnicity in Iran in the human rights section. It was little more than propaganda with no attempt to point to secondary material and anyway the English was appalling. I decided to make references to reports by HRW, Amnesty and UNCHR (I don't think these are pan-Arab or anti-Persian organisations), but also added a \"criticism\" section countering human rights allegations. I believe I summarised many of the points made before. But if you would like to expand on this and perhaps give reference to other secondary material substantiating the arguments, then go ahead. You, Zereshk, have made a point about the importance of secondary material to counter 's analysis of Khuzestan's history. I believe I have met the standards of proof you are demanding. But this does not seem to be good enough.",
"role": "Zereshk"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
92663499.3623.3623
|
[
{
"content": "== I Do Not Have All The Details == And I have no desire to get involved, yet I hae noticed that and and ''I think'' are having edit wars that have spanned onto 3 talk pages (two of which aren't any of their's). Not sure what needs to be done but I think it should be taken care of quickly. -",
"role": "WarthogDemon"
},
{
"content": "Oddly enough, it seems these people constantly check their histories. (At one point I tried to revert some large messy accusations.) Sorry to have brought this onto your page now. >_< - :::Actually, NOT oddly enough . . . I do that too. Though not for this. -",
"role": "Kusma"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
92664561.3854.3854
|
[
{
"content": "== Vandalism? == Doesn't malicious editing and incessent deletion of certain texts from pages construe as vandalism? Universalgenius has been reverting articles to his favor, despite the fact that consensus has been reached in certain matters. That IS vandalism.",
"role": "Kiteinthewind"
},
{
"content": "Block him away then! He needs a lesson! If Aquarelle or me gets blocked, what kind of message are we sending to Wiki editors?",
"role": "Kusma"
},
{
"content": "Well, at least protest wiki_link.",
"role": "Kusma"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
211717949.74386.74386
|
[
{
"content": "== National police of Slovenia??? == ''Kontračeta - The Kontračete were Anti-Partisan Units controlled by the National Police of Slovenia.'' What is the meaning of ''National police of Slovenia''? There was no Slovenia during WW2, it was occupied and divided among the occupiers. Was that some collaborant police created by Italians? Is there any further link that could shed more light on the matter?",
"role": "NikNovi"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
203483248.64123.64123
|
[
{
"content": "== Recent revisions == Guys, I don't know who originally wrote the following passages (Revizionist?); just wanted to say that these are quite blatantly POV. You can't be serious that this is your best attempt at neutral writing? *''\"the real wiki_link of the ethnic Macedonian conscience and identity occurred between the two world wars, and triumphed during wiki_link\"'' *''\"the wiki_link greater-wiki_link regime in wiki_link was destroying every form of manifestation of wiki_link consciousness\"'' ... and so on, this goes for the whole section of which these sentences were part. I know this article used to have some heavily tendentious pro-Bulgarian material, from the time Jingiby edited it. Now somebody seems to have gone and replaced it with some equally tendentious pro-Macedonian material. That's disappointing. I hope you guys can do better than this. By the way, about the title of the article: \"National Liberation War of Macedonia\" sounds like a term that may be common from the perspective of native RoMac national historiography, but is it commonly used in the international literature?",
"role": "Future Perfect at Sunrise"
},
{
"content": "Hello Future. How are you doing? As you know the articles about ethnic Macedonians were a real mess. I made a revision of the article wiki_link and wiki_link which were approved by the majority as neutral and informative. I only want to finish with the revision of this article (which we all agree was very chaotic. But this can not be done over night. i go to work, and in my free time (when I have some) I go to the library and read material, take notes, afterwards I translate them. It is a process. First I must finish inputing data (which as you see is informative - for example when which unit was formed, when it was destroyed and so on). The user is reverting all my revisions (although I added 65% new text to the article). I must finish adding, afterwards I will improve the English, and afterwards we will adjust or exclude the things that according to the majority is not neutral. You know that I always make quality contributions. Don't worry, let me finish it and afterwards we will all together make a great neutral article, and maybe recommend it for an wiki award. Cheers.",
"role": "Köbra"
},
{
"content": "As we said - no problem, include the things you think should be included, but incorporate them into my revision. The data I imputed is informative. I mentioned all of the detachments that were formed in 1942, and their battles. After that the formation of the CPM, data about the Vardar Chetnik Corps, and about the colaborationist organizations. I will also include these days data about the February Campagn, the Spring offencive, about the Otechestven Front and the contribution of the Bulgarian Otechestven Front in the liberation of eastern Vardar Macedonia. What can be more objective than that. We are not on a race. The article was chaotic for more than 2 years. I am separating great amount of my free time to improve the article. Do include your contributions to the article, but do not erase 65% of it to do that. Regards.",
"role": "Köbra"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
109266893.1218.1218
|
[
{
"content": "== Proposal to merge Prehistoric Spain with Prehistoric Portugal & move to Prehistoric Iberia == Currently, the text of ''wiki_link'' seems really to be about prehistoric Iberia. Similarly, the text of ''wiki_link'' seems really to be about the same thing. This would be perfectly understandable seeing as there was no Spain and no Portugal in prehistoric times. I have argued therefore that it would be best to have these articles merged under a title which indicates the geographical region rather than the modern states. I have proposed the articles be merged and moved to ''wiki_link''. Please wiki_link my proposal. wiki_link",
"role": "Jimp"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
65823673.469.469
|
[
{
"content": "== 2nd biggest? == The article says it's the 2nd biggest peninsula in Europe, after the Balkan. What about Scandinavia?",
"role": "Golbez"
},
{
"content": "The article doesn't say southern, it says \"It is the second biggest peninsula of Europe (after the Balkan peninsula) with an area of 582 860 km².\"",
"role": "Burgas00"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
152213422.465.0
|
[
{
"content": "== contact == sorry for a non-article question, but do any of you know how to contact Sakurai? Email? Letter? Psychic hotline? ( ) Try a wiki_link, - I've tried that, it didn't work. I've also tried screaming really hard so he could hear me...didn't work. Ah well...woe is me. I wanted to talk with this genius called Sakruai. ( )",
"role": "PhotoCatBot"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
184445114.1058.1058
|
[
{
"content": "== we need protection == seriously.",
"role": "TheWarlock"
},
{
"content": "Personally, I don't agree with this. Who cares about the protection? It's probably true... —Preceding wiki_link comment added by",
"role": "Azuran"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
324215291.8824.8824
|
[
{
"content": "== Question == external_link, is the creator of the RFC/U CoM? (his own RFC/U?) Is the italicized text yours or CoM's? Thanks.",
"role": "Caspian blue"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
323819947.7048.7048
|
[
{
"content": "== Usernames == Be careful about deleting things. You accidentally deleted the next person on the list external_link.",
"role": "Thejadefalcon"
},
{
"content": "No problem, thanks. I had it on my watchlist and I've found that I'm starting to get rather fast at it. Scarily fast. It's a result of clicking the watchlist button every two seconds.",
"role": "Beeblebrox"
},
{
"content": "You are very quickly moving towards a block. Any user may send messages to any other user's talk page, and no user is allowed to remove a deletion discussion template from a page while the discussion is still underway.",
"role": "75.141.100.115"
},
{
"content": "I gave them a \"last warning,\" if they vandalize one more time, I'd say report to ANI AIV. I probably shouldn't block them myself because I'm \"involved.\"",
"role": "Thejadefalcon"
},
{
"content": "They just removed the mfd tag again, I reported them at wiki_link",
"role": "Thejadefalcon"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
314540585.6679.6679
|
[
{
"content": "== [WIKI_LINK: File:Browning M2HB .50-caliber.jpg] == US Government websites not only host government created works - see the disclaimers for defenseimagery.mil or army.mil. Per the EXIF, and maybe per the description in the past, this photgraph was not taken by an US employee but an Australian soldier and is not public domain per or similar licenses like PD-USGov-Military-Navy/Army.",
"role": "Martin H."
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
316041407.7114.7114
|
[
{
"content": "==Glock== First off, external_link/AGF, knock it off~! If you seriously think that J_E is my sock then why not start a SPI? Secondly, I'm of the opinion that the said image on article page can be updated to reflect the latest model/design, per wiki_link. Lastly, name callings of your fellow editor will lead you to nowhere in terms of AGF, you should know that since you're a seasoned editor. Why can't you have the courtesy of thinking that other editors are here to help improve the article? Other than the obvious vandalism edits, why is it that you always think of the worst of others. Have you forgotten that Wikipedia is a collabarative effort? I won't mince my word but you really ought to be ashame of yourself! '' ''",
"role": "Dave1185"
},
{
"content": "*Continue to behave as such towards me isn't going to do you any good and like I've said before, take it to SPI if you think that J_E is my sock. If not, knock it off~! I'm not here to argue with you for the sake of it, mind you. FYI, I just happen to be reading the article and wondered why the profile image kept changing, is that a coincidence? If you think it is, then it is. If you think it is not, then it isn't. I have nothing to hide fom anybody. '' ''",
"role": "Koalorka"
},
{
"content": "*Per your frustration, mayhaps you need to take a wikibreak. And I most certainly don't have to answer you on the last part since you have taken it on your own assumption that you are above the rest and that all others are not worthy of collaborating with you on Wikipedia (It's written all over your top statement, go read it!). Plus, I'm not here to judge you but please don't take it as your task to judge others, you are not god and you most certainly aren't an Admin here calling the shots. Take it to SPI if you want, my conscience is clear. '' ''",
"role": "Koalorka"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
211538523.5868.5868
|
[
{
"content": "== Disco Success == Well I noticed that it does not include the chart postions for the 70's line-ups fro 74-77 on Disco so I added them( look a discography). It shows they had 3 disco #1's and rest top 5 which is never talk about anywahere. The thing is this artcale saids basically the 70's line-up was struggling. Yes in terms of R&B; and Pop in 1973 and onward but in Disco they had great success and should be noted on this artcle that they were succelful in Disco and had 3 #1 Disco hits. Also that the 2 line-ups found new success in Disco and had and that that they regained some of their fame in the form of the Disco hits. I am also edditing the top samples things and including the songs in the 70's that wer top 10 Disco and will provide a sample of them soon, Thank you, Saimaroimaru_2008.",
"role": "Saimaroimaru 2008"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
197685544.5110.5110
|
[
{
"content": "== Legacy section == I do wish whoever is deleting this section would stop doing so or at least discus it first. It's a perfectly reasonable contribution. : I don't see why the word 'probably' is inappropriate. It's a well known fact that far more records were sold in the 1960s than now so it is an intelligent, reasonable thought.",
"role": "SmokeyTheCat"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
326601085.7426.7426
|
[
{
"content": "== A tricky question of “myth” == Hi Lulu, I am getting in contact with you after noting your contribution to the neutral point of view policy article and have done this due to an issue that I’ve raised in the talk page of another article that may require outside help to resolve. The discussion has now stretched way beyond 10,000 words (with me providing more than my share) and that has made its way past a wiki_link. I guess it all depends whether the following issue is one, time permitting, with which you would like to become involved. I’ve raised issue regarding the title of the article “Creation myth” after seeing the talk page notice which claimed: The article title adheres to the wiki_link policy... . I did not think that this was the case and began the related wiki_link. It’s got quite a charged on both sides at times and, amongst other things, I’ve taken the view that some of the editors may want to bring the issue to a swift conclusion. A full review of all the issues mentioned would be appreciated but, not knowing when you may see this message or which other editors may have taken an interest in this topic, it may be worthwhile to make an initial check of the current state of the discussion so as to check the current state of the debate. I do not personally hold any religious faith and yet considered the neutrality issues that I perceived to have been raised by the article title to be worth tackling, I realise that this is an issue that I have personally raised and, finally, I don’t have any expectation of outside involvement and just mention this in case this issue may also be of interest for you. regards",
"role": "GregKaye"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
322358989.5975.5975
|
[
{
"content": "== Just so you know II == You're being discussed here:",
"role": "64.208.230.145"
},
{
"content": "Yeah, the anonymous socks are pretty free ranging in the topics they touch on in the random ANI blather. I rather wonder exactly ''who'' 64- is. It is evident that it is some editor that I have encountered many times over the years, given its familiarity with various edit questions spanning that time. Whether it is an editor who is otherwise blocked or banned, I am not quite sure (I have some hunches, but mostly I've forgotten most of the dozens of blocked editors who have pushed various partisanship on pages I've edited). ×",
"role": "Scjessey"
},
{
"content": "It sounds like it would be a good thing if you would join your drawer-mate 64.208.230.145 in creating (and sticking) to a named account for your edits rather than trying to hide behind however many IPs you edit under. FWIW, it also might be worth looking up the term \"non-punitive\", since you seem to have mistaken its meaning. Maybe even go make a constructive edit somewhere in article space to round out the whole \"positive direction\" theme on ANI. ×",
"role": "71.57.8.103"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
192080482.18556.18556
|
[
{
"content": "== Ben 10 Alien Force aliens == I have some names of the new Ben 10 Alien force aliens. Would you like for them to be mentioned? And while I'm at it, some of the toys have facts about the planets that each of the aliens come from. Would you like that source of information as well? Thank you.",
"role": "Neo Guyver"
},
{
"content": "Yeah...i already got the lecture above...I personally think that the 10 new guys should be added.",
"role": "Sukecchi"
},
{
"content": "I found the website, it's ben10.com. It will redirect you to the Alien Force website.",
"role": "Ged UK"
},
{
"content": "What about Ben10-toys.net? they have images too and the names.",
"role": "Ged UK"
},
{
"content": "So, we're going to wait until the series comes out and shows the aliens?",
"role": "Ged UK"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
187593891.16260.16260
|
[
{
"content": "==Can we?== We now know of the AF aliens, can we get them on here?",
"role": "SLJCOAAATR 1"
},
{
"content": "if people want to add the new aliens please add a reliable source or the new aliens section will be deleted until a source is found. See wiki_link, wiki_link, wiki_link and wiki_link",
"role": "Ged UK"
},
{
"content": "There is absolutely NOTHING to say about them right now. Wait until the series begins. I don't care if this person has \"connections\" or not. -",
"role": "SLJCOAAATR 1"
},
{
"content": "You want to list them like the others. There is nothing to say in that format. Our option right now is for a paragraph like the Unseen forms section. Nothing more until it airs. -",
"role": "SLJCOAAATR 1"
},
{
"content": "Alright, fine. Now, you also can't just plop a link in there and say this is the source. You have to cite it. -",
"role": "SLJCOAAATR 1"
},
{
"content": "The IP adresses are adding them again, they've also put them in the same format as the original aliens (with bold headings)! I've deleted them again, there is no information on the website, find another source that tells us about the new aliens then you can add them to the article",
"role": "SLJCOAAATR 1"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
143548887.1630.1630
|
[
{
"content": "== Huh? == I'm confused by your comment external_link. Is this a joke or what?",
"role": "Friday"
},
{
"content": "Oh yah? Hmm, I'd expect an experienced editor would know better. Of course, maybe expectations are different over there. Still, I can't see how such canvassing could be a ''good'' thing.",
"role": "Trey"
},
{
"content": "Just passing by, and I wondered if I could be enlightened of my faults. It's generally not nice to discuss users like this behind their backs, by the way. Cheers. '''''' ('''')",
"role": "Trey"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
143877368.8.8
|
[
{
"content": "We cannot delete your userpage now.",
"role": "Zscout370"
},
{
"content": "Just delete it and let me be. —",
"role": "Trey"
},
{
"content": "The situation is, I am leaving. —",
"role": "Zscout370"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
270177839.28034.28034
|
[
{
"content": "== February 2009 == in accordance with wiki_link for {{#if:wiki_link on wiki_link|'''wiki_link on wiki_link'''|wiki_link}}. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to wiki_link. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may wiki_link by adding the text below, but you should read our wiki_link first.",
"role": "Tiptoety"
},
{
"content": "No, you are blocked (for a short time) for wiki_link.",
"role": "JustSomeRandomGuy32"
},
{
"content": "It might be accurate but based on this talk page, multiple users have told you to be careful and not continue edit warring, yet you continued.",
"role": "JustSomeRandomGuy32"
},
{
"content": "In this case it's not really about facts.. it's you arguing with others about when content should be included and what constitutes confirmation of a players signing.. I don't really have a problem with people adding teams to players after credible media reports .. if the deal falls apart just change it back... It could be you want to be the one to add all the info... i've never quite figured out how you add transactions so quickly.. it's uncanny...",
"role": "JustSomeRandomGuy32"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
271057420.29079.29079
|
[
{
"content": "== Florida Marlins == I checked the newspaper website, and didn't see the roster because it was printed in the margin of a page. But it wouldn't be printed if untrue.",
"role": "Dshibshm"
},
{
"content": "I told you that I read it. All you need to do is get a print copy of today's paper in this area, and you will see it. :::::My bad. Yesterday's paper",
"role": "JustSomeRandomGuy32"
},
{
"content": "wiki_link doesn't require that sources be on-line. If he says he saw an off-line source we can accept the source in good faith. '' ''",
"role": "JustSomeRandomGuy32"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
251263251.32055.32055
|
[
{
"content": "== COI and Govt Employees == On behalf of federal web managers, I would like to get some clarification and guidance and maybe start a discussion regarding employees of the federal government editing Wikipedia articles. I primarily mean civil servants rather than political appointees and specifically as part of our responsibility to provide accurate information to the public. We recognize that Wikipedia is a frequent resource for many Internet users, including us. Our log files show that federal websites receive many referrals from Wikipedia. And many of us support and respect the work that the Wikipedia community does to create quality articles. We understand and have studied policies and guidelines, and more than one of us have edited a page or two. I am reaching out to the Wikipedia community to help us develop appropriate guidelines and policies for external_link and our participation. COI guidelines seem to discourage employees from editing on behalf of employers, but we frequently see information that is unclear or sometimes wrong. While we know we can just edit, we want to do so transparently and acceptably. There is concern that we will offend the Wikipedia community and encourage negative attention if we get this wrong. On the other hand, there are great resources in the federal (and state and local) space that would be valuable to Wikipedia users, and we know about them, and can cite them, too. So, what are the best ways for federal employees to contribute to this project? For example, some federal editors will only edit in their official capacity from a government computer with a government IP and from a Wikipedia account. Should that account indicate the name of the agency? Whether it is a communications or a program office? I don't think there would be any controversy on editing dates that are incorrect or improving a reference or correcting an error (like which agency has jurisdiction over an area). Are there things that we ''shouldn't'' edit? For substantive changes, should we be explicit about our roles on talk pages? If we don't get any feedback on proposed changes, how long should we wait until we make the change ourselves? Other ideas/areas/pitfalls? The goal is to create guidelines and best practices for the federal web community. We will publish on external_link. I am happy to move this to another area if that makes more sense, and if you want to post comments and discussion on my page, please do. Thanks for your help.",
"role": "Kos42"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
236161634.27131.27131
|
[
{
"content": "== \"Hypothetical\" situation == Let's say that a page is created about a certain webcomic. And let's say that this comic is very polarizing, with many people loving it, and many people loving to hate it. Now let's say that this page, after much debate, starts including a section about how what people are saying about the comic( much like the reception section on most articles about movies), and that some people, such as rival webcomics, parody it. Then, along comes a user who defends the comic, and removes much of the criticisms in that section. But then it becomes apparent to people outside of the page that this user is actually the author of this webcomic. But the user is hiding behind the policy on wiki_link, saying that it's against the rules to declare that this user is actually the author of the comic. What can be done about the conflict of interest in this case?",
"role": "Zell65"
},
{
"content": "If your evidence on who the author is on wikipedia is only coming from that encyclopedia drama page then you need to reconsider your evidence. Especialy if you continue to go around spreading your opinions to other editors as you did external_link. Having no evidence, or bad evidence and then going around to everyone and spreading that is not good faith, and is damaging to wikipedia. You cannot go around spreading rumors as fact.",
"role": "EdJohnston"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
12451425.436.436
|
[
{
"content": "== User page vandalism == A couple anons vandalized your user page, so I reverted them. Just wanted to let you know ) -|",
"role": "Frazzydee"
},
{
"content": "Oh...do you want me to stop reverting? Should I block if they continue? -|",
"role": "AngryParsley"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
12941035.584.584
|
[
{
"content": "== edited your post == fyi: your post has been external_link. — : Now he's done it again. ; post now , too [whole subpage now deleted]. —",
"role": "Davenbelle"
},
{
"content": "Thanks for the heads-up. That guy is really getting on my nerves.",
"role": "AngryParsley"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
235774547.61002.61002
|
[
{
"content": "==RE: the sentence ''In mainstream Judaism, a Jew is...''== I have just reverted who expanded upon this sentence that has remained in the article for some time. This has followed a lot of back & forth edits and one user (whom I cannot recall) making a logical statement: the sentence as it stood was correct in that all Jewish denominations agreed that a Jew was the child of a Jewish mother or a convert to Judaism - but that, for Reform Jews (as an example), this also included MORE, namely a Jew could be the child of a Jewish father. Therefore, the sentence stood. However, to expand it the way this user has done is to make a claim that mainstream (as opposed to ''traditional'') also has strict rules, etc., and these rules appear to be ''traditional'' ones. Sorry - that is simply not the case. Mainstream denotes most of/the majority of/virtually all/etc. of Judaism, and not just the traditional. If you want to speak about the additional ''rules'', stick that in the traditional section, the same way the progressive ideals of Reform are placed appropriately. Best,",
"role": "A Sniper"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
218721997.57099.57099
|
[
{
"content": "== Merge == '''Jewish identity''' These two articles cover virtually the same territory and the other is pretty short, so incorporating them makes sense. I would be inclined to name the merged article wiki_link, as that is more encyclopedic than \"Who is a Jew?\" —❤☮☺wiki_link☯",
"role": "Koavf"
},
{
"content": "'''Keeps coming up?''' I read it - that doesn't mean that I disregarded it. What I see directly above here in #Merger proposal is a pretty weak consensus and a lot of back-and-forth. If this comes up every few months, there is probably a reason why. —❤☮☺wiki_link☯ ::'''Addendum''' You also undid the formatting errors that I fixed on the page; if you're going to remove the tag, why would you do that as well? —❤☮☺wiki_link☯",
"role": "ThuranX"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
202169381.11823.11823
|
[
{
"content": "== Out of Courtesy == A thread has been opened at wiki_link, the thread can be found external_link.",
"role": "Rgoodermote"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
203891639.12506.12506
|
[
{
"content": "==Personal attacks== Hey, can you stop external_link] me? Ya, thanks. ''''''",
"role": "PAVA11"
},
{
"content": "Because you know damn well how you meant to say it. Also, these: , , . That's a pretty decent collection. ''''''",
"role": "Die4Dixie"
},
{
"content": "Please, the whole \"I'm a victim\" deal is getting incredibly, incredibly old. Can you even provide a place where I reverted one of ''your'' edits for no reason? '''''' ::::::After taking a quick look at about 500 of your last edits, I haven't reverted one of your edits ''once''. ''''''",
"role": "Die4Dixie"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
231798880.15769.15769
|
[
{
"content": "== Response to RfC == I have responded to the RfC you raised at wiki_link . I would appreciate if you read the response. Thank you. *As I suggested in my response to your RfC: a failure to adhere to Wikipedia:Civility. a failure to adhere to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines Conduct issues should be discussed of the talk page with the involved editors comments about unspecified editors are unhelpful WP:1RR is a possible solution but as there seems no consensus to use it, 3RR is policy and applies When it comes to keeping on topic and getting bogged down in trivia I suggest using sub-pages. We create a sub-page dedicated to the topic being discussed ...",
"role": "Matilda"
},
{
"content": "and as noted in my response my addition is allowed under wiki_link",
"role": "Skyring"
},
{
"content": "If you see WP:Bold as a problem, raise it on the policy talk page. I don't see it as a problem.",
"role": "Skyring"
},
{
"content": "So, if WP:BOLD isn't the problem, and your edit caused a massive shitfight, apparently still plopping away, then where do you think the problem lies? You didn't mention the material itself, which was of a trivial and poorly sourced nature. Inserting this sort of stuff into an article that has been the scene of bitter controversy, and then edit-warring and stoutly defending it against the advice of several more experienced editors might have something to do with the ruckus? Wouldn't it have been better to gain consensus for inclusion of disputed material, especially when WP:BLP concerns had been raised?",
"role": "Matilda"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
228468167.5005.5005
|
[
{
"content": "== Political reverts == Hello Skyring(Pete). I notice you have reverted edits on the Howard article recently. I thought we had all moved away from that kind of mode of editing. Reverts subvert the wishes of the editing community as a whole. It's better to allow the editing community to decide whether content stays or goes. Content disputes need to go through the dispute resolution process. In regard to the particular sentence about public figures who considered Howard's Iraq policy as contravening international laws against war crimes, I've got no idea if the issue gets put to the community to decide whether it would live or die. It could go either way. But then we just have to accept the community decision. The concept is that by letting the community decide, the audience of Wikipedia readers gets the type of encyclopaedia that they want (or deserve). My opinion is that reverting will only lead to trouble. If edit wars break out, then it will only lead to penalties or sanctions against those who partake.''''''",
"role": "Lester"
},
{
"content": "Thanks, Lester! Takes two to edit-war. How come you didn't send the same message to the other side? . Perhaps because they support your POV? You've spent most of your career here edit-warring over trivia and it's hard to take your advice when you don't follow it yourself. LOL! It would help if you checked the discussion on Lester's warnings. Look at the timing of his message above. In any case, I'm removing contentious BLP material, as per discussion, and as per wiki_link. Let's stick to the established process, hey? Do you have a particular urgent need to label someone a war criminal?",
"role": "Matilda"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
427695564.32647.32647
|
[
{
"content": "== Geographic databases == Hi Drmies Just wanted to call your attention to wiki_link and the poll therein (there are a couple of relevant discussions at DGG's talk page and . Hope your summer plans are shaping up nicely. When's your first sabbatical and where are you going to take it?",
"role": "Bongomatic"
},
{
"content": "Probably going to visit family for a couple of weeks, but have some projects that need attention (and I don't have the luxury of summer vacation). The kiddos aren't quite old enough for cultural pursuits yet, let alone bike tours, though sounds great. Best.",
"role": "Drmies"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
427681986.31007.31007
|
[
{
"content": "==Haitian occupation of Santo Domingo== Sorry but how does an event that occurs in 1822 directly related to something that occurs more than a century later in 1937 or 1915 or 1916? Thats like putting the wiki_link as a \"see also\" for the wiki_link??? How are they related besides that they are the same country's?",
"role": "El Mayimbe"
},
{
"content": "**I don't seem to understand you're first sentence, how can anything be looked at in a vacuum? Your use of deductive reasoning doesn't make sense to me in your argument. Anyway, I was also not aware of SamEv's actions in reverting this users edits, yet your mentioning of this lends credence to the fact that the said user is just changing the facts for what ever reason. Yet please accuse away of \"tag-teaming\" with again deducing, when clearly the problem is the IP editor. ***In fact I just took a look at the IP users talk page and it seems that SamEV was already telling him about relevance issues in his links. Oddly thought you support the links?",
"role": "Drmies"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
392977706.44668.44668
|
[
{
"content": "==True Cross== I'm glad you noticed that. I hope I didn't write that, but I may have....",
"role": "Amandajm"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
389929630.28779.28779
|
[
{
"content": "== UNK == I was surprised to see you had removed my addition of the UNK particle accelerator in Protvino to the UNK disambig page. Is there a wikipolicy I am missing or what... because I believe a particle accelerator that went into construction (but was never finnished) that would if completed have been on the same size scale as the wiki_link and energy-wise in between the LHC and the wiki_link definitely needs mention. I was in fact schocked to find it was not mentioned anywhere else than on the protvino page.",
"role": "Gillis"
},
{
"content": "**Sorry, but I find your editing style disrespectfull if you can't be bothered to write \"UNK accelerator\" into google and notice this is qutie notable. You might notice the large hadron collider has cost 8 billion to build. This would have been a similar magnitude project. If you look at google scholar you can find several other source about it. Just because I did not put my time into writing a three page article about the damn thing does not constitute you right to *remove* it and is completely against the idea that has built wikipedia, that is to build on many small additions. Please reinstate my changes and leave whatever else you want to have there then.",
"role": "Drmies"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
135048926.41980.41980
|
[
{
"content": "== Atheism == bogdan, if you registered yourself as \"orthodox\" in the census, then you are an orthdox (not atheist) for the sake of this page. We are talking about offcial figures here, not your original research. How do you know that there are \"many\" people in your alleged situation? How do we know that you did indeed declare yourself orthodox? Please leave original research and personal feelings aside when contributing here. As for the statistics you provide about church attendance, they come from an obscure poll conducted by an NGO, while the way people define themselves comes from the official census. Most foreigners visiting Romania notice the high church attendance rate (churches are packed and so on). Should the NGO's opinion deserve much space in the article? I believe not.",
"role": "Icar"
}
] | null |
conversations-gone-awry
|
57380278.34706.34706
|
[
{
"content": "== Greece == I'd like to see references for that 29,000 claim for Greece. According to the 2001 census, there are 23,066 Romanian immigrants in Greece, and 5,898 from the Republic of Moldova (of course, it's a question of doubt whether they are all ethnically Romanian and espouse a Romanian national identity - there may be ethnic Hungarians or Russians - not to mention ethnic Moldovans p).",
"role": "Telex"
}
] | null |
End of preview. Expand
in Data Studio
README.md exists but content is empty.
- Downloads last month
- 5