lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Twisted Metal: Black

message: I have a problem with this line:
"After the poorly received versions of Twisted Metal produced by Sony's 989 Studios division"
This appears to be rooted in personal opinion.  The two games produced by 989 studios sold well over a million units each.  As the poor reception listed above is not referencing sales, it is opinion and not relevant.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.198.97 (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Issue of Opinion

message: I'd like to see the Twisted Metal article be renamed to Twisted Metal (series) and have all the games, not just Black and Head-On, have their own articles. The Twisted Metal article is just so long and messy as it is now. I could go ahead and start creating the articles but right now, the individual titles all redirect back to Twisted Metal and I don't know how to change it. I also don't know how to rename the article to "Twisted Metal (series)". If anyone wants to collaborate with me, you can leave me a message on my talk page. I'd be happy to work on the articles once the formatting is changed. Tygartl1 18:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Twisted Metal series

message: Although Twisted Metal Head-On's lost bonus levels says that Harbor City was scrapped because of the deaths of 6 programmers, I haven't found any evidence to prove that this is true.  Everything I've found in regards to the subject leads me to believe that the deaths are a hoax.
Does anyone have any proof that anyone actually died?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.229.213 (talk) 04:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Twisted Metal Harbor City Deaths And Resurrection Future 2027

message: I'v seen "Twisted Metal: Black is a dark natured game" written in 5 different ways in this article. We get how dark and scary it is cuz after all it's called Twisted Metal: BLACK. 
Duhh. 216.8.144.46 (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Stop saying how dark and gritty this game is a million times

message: I stumbled upon this page while checking out the articles in the "Video game controversies" category.   However I could not find anything in this article that even hinted at there being a controversy.
The article either needs to be updated to include information about the "controversy", assuming there is one,  or it should be removed from the "Video game controversies" category. Tzvi_Katowitz (talk) 00:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this in the category "Video game controversies"?
Talk:1990 NHL supplemental draft

message: *Bruce Coles - 2
*Darryl Noren - 3
Note: Articles must also meet WP:GNG. Also, Lyle Wildgoose (wikidata:Q86688860) played in the Roller Hockey International. --75.88.89.194 (talk) 07:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  These redlinked draft picks meet [[WP:NHOCKEY]] 
Talk:Joel Pott

message: Joel Pott was born on 27 november 1979, and it's the singer/guitarist for the band Athlete.
:Can anyone cite his age? Tom Green (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of Birth

message: Im fan of Athlete but cant help question why this article exists? I thought Wiki articles for band members only got created if the band member is known outside the badn for other things of notability.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.65.60 (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  sep article?? 
Talk:Eustochium

message: "The wicked deed was probably instigated by John II, the Patriarch of Jerusalem", etc. Wikipedia is not expected to advance propagandistic claims of the outdated and hopelessly biased Catholic Encyclopaedia. --Ghirla-трёп- 21:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Orthodox bias 

message: — Assignment last updated by Ctschroeder (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Sex and Gender in Early Christianities
Talk:McConnell v. Federal Election Commission

message: I inserted the request to expand the Opinions section since there seem to be many mentions of the McCain-Feingold Act this election season. I would be very grateful if a Wikipedian with knowledge of this subject would summarize the arguments for and against upholding the constitutionality of the law in question. The relevant words of the First Amendment say, "Congress shall make no law respecting ... or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;...," so I would think that would settle the issue, and I suspect this was the view of at least some of the dissenters, but I would love to know the details and the rationales of those who spoke for the majority and minority views. In summary form, of course, since the full decision is readily available for those with the time and knowledge to handle the legal technicalities. Thanks.
Also, The Oral arguments section has an opening sentence about oral arguments but the balance of the paragraph is actually about the final conclusions of the justices, not the arguments they heard or made. Let's face it, this article needs work. —Blanchette (talk) 10:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please, what were the main arguments for the opinions? 

message: I don't think the holding is correct...in Nixon v. Shrink Missouri, Justice Stevens in a Concurrence states that "money is property, not speech." That is not the central legal issue that is decided in this case. In fact no where in the language of McConnell does it state that. So whoever wrote the summary is wrong. Sorry.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.90.88 (talk) 05:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning - Incorrect information.  

message: In light of the Supreme Court recent decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, an update of this article is needed. Also, I don't believe Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. overruled any part of McConnell. SMP0328. (talk) 04:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update needed
Talk:Vincenzo Esposito

message: There's a far more detailed article about him on the Italian Wikipedia... if someone wouldn't mind translating it, it'd be a better article and contain more information than I can find on him in English.  ekedolphin 01:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Is he really called that?  That's Spanish, not Italian.  Italian would be il diavolo.  71.20.157.92 (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diablo?
Talk:United States v. Carolene Products Co.

message: "According to some lore, repeated in constitutional law classes around the nation, the language was planted by a forward thinking law clerk."
This isn't just lore, it's well-documented history.  The first paragraph was included at the urging of Hughes; Stone's clerk wrote the last two paragraphs, or was at least "substantially responsible" for them.  (See Democracy and Distrust, p. 76, and the note on p. 222, as well as read http://www.jstor.org/view/00101958/ap030646/03a00020/0 and http://www.jstor.org/view/00101958/ap030797/03a00050/0).  
Stone's clerk wasn't just "some guy."  He was Louis Lusky, 1st in his class at Columbia, later esteemed law professor there. Ryanluck 01:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authorship of the Footnote 

message: Since Filled Milk Act is extremely short, I propose to merge it into this article. (In fact, if you agree, just go ahead.) Proposed as part of the Notability Wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 18:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  merger 

message: The section, as it is, is extremely shallow, and doesn't capture the gist of Miller's argument; indeed, it makes Miller look like a buffoon who doesn't know what he's talking about. From my extremely cursory review of the article, he seems to call for a reinterpretation rational-basis review, such that the court would be empowered to strike down cases clearly arising out of special interests, which would have interesting interactions with the political questions doctrine. As it is, I haven't the time to expend to do a fuller reading of Miller's article, but if anyone with access to JSTOR is willing to expand on it, that would add a great deal to the article itself. I will probably add some brief expansion when I can formulate it (and have time). Lockesdonkey (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: More important than whether Miller's views have been properly represented, I have no idea from reading the article who Miller is and why his view of the case matters more than anyone else's (or at all).  This is the same issue with most criticism sections in articles; there's no apparent reason why they've been included and they're not contextualized in any way.  Editors just throw in a bunch of quotes without any real selection criteria.  I think such a section can only start properly with a secondary source commenting on the criticism.  Without such an overview, it's all arbitrary and meaningless, and it should just be removed.  postdlf (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken the section out for now.  It's just a quote with no summary.  postdlf (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: See the switch in time that saved nine, which in part touches on the issue of the accuracy of the traditional account that Roosevelt's court packing plan had a real effect on SCOTUS rulings. I don't have particular sources at this time, but my understanding is it's become fairly well accepted that the switch was coming anyway. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious
Talk:150 personae non gratae of Turkey

message: "28 June 1938 this list is removed from Law, but none was returned." - I assume the first half should be was - but what does the second part mean ? -- Beardo 01:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I fixed that a few months ago. Atilim Gunes Baydin 02:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: ?24.188.128.48 21:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the last three? 

message: Personally I find this to be a highly inappropriate use of language. It is simply far too vague and colloquial. It would be wonderful if it were rewritten. 138.38.213.37 (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "...a who's who of the Ottoman Empire"
Talk:California newt

message: How come there is no mention of their being kept as pets? I, in fact, have one (didn't buy it, got it from my science teacher, who in turn got it from another student). At least, it sure looks like a California Newt. Could it be some kind of strange lookalike?
As far as toxicity goes, I'm a little confused about how doom-and-gloom the article is. I would assume that they are like the Poison Dart Frogs and lose their toxicity in captivity. Either that, or the danger is only in eating the animal (not with touching it or its water) such as with Fugu. People keep Pufferfish in their aquariums all the time and don't seem to get sick or anything. I do take commonsense precautions as with handling any amphibian, but neither me nor any of "Isaac Newt"'s previous owners has ever had any bad reaction to it. If they are, in fact, common in the pet trade, that should be mentioned (most of the pet stores I go to don't have much in the way of amphibians).
Stonemason89 01:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pets

message: The article is titled California Newt, but the second word is in lowercase in the article. Which is correct?--ShelfSkewed Talk 14:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct capitalization? 

message: I cannot get the doi for source 4 to redirect properly. The correct DOI should be https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.1993.tb00469.x. 
Ths17sbu21 (talk) 19:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Source 4 DOI not working

message: — Assignment last updated by Dombroesel1 (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: California Natural History
Talk:United States v. O'Brien

message: Hurts  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.4.236.153 (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Love 

message: I had already served and been honorably discharged when this had been fully litigated, and while I am aware the registration requirement stands, I don't think that there is any longer a physical card issued as proof, just entry in a database.  Is that correct?2600:1004:B1C4:1A5E:0:8:F54A:D901 (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft card?
Talk:Bolling v. Sharpe

message: removed red links, replaced with normal text. ToaDjango 21:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-links
Talk:Seafood fork

message: This article needs help! --FloNight talk 01:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not even accurate. I've seen more 4-tined fish forks than three, I think. But no, there doesn't seem to be a lot to say... support merge. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Help
Talk:Washington v. Glucksberg

message: I believe that Harold Glucksberg should merge to Washington v. Glucksberg. The Harold Glucksberg article only states that Glucksberg was one of the physicians involved in Washington vs. Glucksberg, duplicating what is mentioned in the Washington v. Glucksberg article. There is no reason to fork a separate biography about him at this time. Medtopic 20:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I always thought redlinks should be avoided, and besides, it's around the same size as many biograhical stubs :/. Homestarmy 22:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If merge/redirected, the Wikilink will be removed. Stubs are one thing, but this is a duplicate of information in another article: The only factoid we have about him is that he was involved in Washington v. Glucksberg. Is there any other information about him that would warrant keeping it as a stub? Medtopic 16:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It's redundant and unnecessary. Unless someone knows anything else about this Glucksberg character, he doesn't need his own entry. Busterbros 01:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge header

message: What the court held uninimously is that Washington's prohibition of physician-assisted suicide does not, on its face, violate the constitution. The article here attributes to all members of the court a broader claim, that assisted suicide is never protected by the Due Process Clause. This was not held unanimously. For example, Justice Stevens concluded that the law is not facially unconstitutional; but, he wrote, "there are situations in which an interest in hastening death is legitimate. Indeed, not only is that interest sometimes legitimate, I am also convinced that there are times when it is entitled to constitutional protection." And "[a]lthough there is no absolute right to physician-assisted suicide... it [is] clear that some individuals who... are already on the threshold of death have a constitutionally protected interest that may outweigh the State's interest in preserving life at all costs." 142.147.57.252 (talk) 01:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracy
Talk:Bosie

message: No DuBose Martin, isn't notable. Only received a maximum of 21 g-hits. Message per request at WP:3O.--Andeh 02:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also came here from WP:3O. Unless there are reliable sources demonstrating that Bosie is a well-known nickname for DuBose Martin, I don't think it should be included here. Note that  isn't a reliable source, as it has no fact-checking capacity. Ziggurat 02:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:John Fitzalan (1223–1267)

message: John FitzAlan was the 1st Earl of Arundel (not the 6th) of a new creation of the earldom after the d'Aubigny earldom was attainted.  We do not number earls in order of how many people previously held the title, but rather by how many people have held the title in that particular creation of the title.
The FitzAlan earls must be numbered accordingly from this point:  This John Arundel was 1st Earl of Arundel, his son John was 2nd Earl of Arundel, etc.
ScottyFLL 02:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Red Angus Association of America

message: This is not written as an encyclopedic entry, especially with words such as "visionary breeders".  Clean up is required. Dukemeiser 17:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • &site=  count) • I'm watching this page so just reply to me right here! 10:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Encyclopedic?
Talk:Clinton v. Jones

message: * In the last paragraph of the article; Alternative Sanctions quote it mentions the fine amount as $900,000. While ref link for this particular cite is dead (tagged); Almost all other sources reference it as $90,000. --In Allah We Trust (talk) 07:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative Sanctions 
Talk:Printz v. United States

message: Surely the precedent related to the rights of states and individuals vis-à-vis the federal government is important enough that it should be mentioned in the introduction? __meco (talk) 09:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  10th amendment ramifications mention in lede 

message: I received an email today headed "County Sheriffs Can Block Federal Gun Control", and saying that, due to Printz, "no matter what gun control laws are passed by the federal government, they can only be enforced in your area if your county sheriff allows them to be." I'm not a lawyer but, by my reading, that overstates things. By my reading, local authorities can refuse to enforce federal laws and regulations, but they cannot block enforcement by federal authorities. My article-related problem with that is that I reached that conclusion after looking at the SCOTUS opinion in Printz, not after looking at this article. The information needed for that conclusion is in the article, but it's not easy to dig out.
I suggest the addition of a new section headed Ruling, located ahead of the Background section and containing something like the following:
:Referring to New York v. United States, the Court ruled as follows:
As I said, I'm a non-lawyer, so I'll leave it up to regular editors of this article to decide whether or not this suggestion has merit. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested new section: ''Ruling'' 

message: Ramos has the following quotes (syllabus/decision)
* The States are free to provide greater protections in their criminal justice system than the Federal Constitution requires. 
*It is elementary that States are free to provide greater protections in their criminal justice system than the Federal Constitution requires
These do not adequately back the statement "The States can only add-to individual and fundamental rights but can never diminish them.
While this statement may be true, it is not a statement that is backed by Ramos. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ramos 

message: Since the shooter underwent (and passed) a background check to obtain their weapon, the outcome of this case couldn't have had any effect on the incident whatsoever. Why is this here? Oktayey (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing that nobody has provided any explanation, I have removed the mention from the article. Oktayey (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevant mention of Tuscon Shooting
Talk:Frank Cameron Jackson

message: I recently added some stuff and cleaned up.  However, this article could really use some expanding, especially in Jackson's work on ethics and perception. - Jaymay 07:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean up & expansion

message: There is a slightly misleading statement here:
The article talks about Jackson's creation of the "Mary's Room Thought Experiment". Jackson's original answer to the question was "Yes, she does learn something new, thus Physicalism is false."  He later ceases to be an Epiphenomenalist and his answer is "No, she does not learn something new."
:Perhaps the article should take into account his change of opinion. Refer to the "Mary's Room" article for clarification.
::Agreed. It has been added. - Jaymay 07:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jackson's change of mind

message: Would someone who can please snap a shot of him and upload it? Prospects of getting one by other methods don't look great; there are no photos on Flickr or similar sites for example. Richard001 (talk) 09:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo needed
Talk:Daltrey (album)

message: Thank you to the anonymous person who added the album cover image. Rob Banzai 02:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Album Cover

message: Can someone please provide a legit source for the claim that Jimmy Page played guitar on "There Is Love"?  A Google search only points to the Wikipedia article. 74.107.138.40 (talk) 07:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Jimmy Page?
Talk:Multifocal seizure

message: No point to make a new stub about a specific type of seizure when an article on seizures already exist. --Ultimus 02:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added this for 2 reasons. First, I've seen more than one article pointing to this one, and it was missing. Second, neither in Epilepsy or Seizure a proper definition of multifocal seizure can be found. --Aristiana 16:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge
Talk:Geronimo Pratt

message: sitanka50.8.253.195 (talk) 04:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The book "Last Man Standing" by Jack Olsen would probably answer your question. Keep in mind that this book has a strong pro-Pratt bias.Pokey5945 (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  I worked at Deuel Vocational Institution from 1988-2002 as a Substitute Teacher in the academic program. I am pretty sure I recall Geronimo Pratt as a student in one of my classes. Does anyone know whether Geronimo was ever incarcerated at DVI? 

message: There are some disturbing facts about the murder case, not mentioned in the article (just read "Last Man Standing"). 
1.) The poor teacher and her husband WERE robbed and shot by two Black Panthers. Who had access to Pratt`s car (and his `45?). 
1b.) The "underground" part of the LA section of the BPP, founded and led by ex-gang members WAS committing crimes right, left and center to fund the party: this is even in the very pro-Pratt, pro-Panthers book.
2.) The family-snapshot, that seemed to depict a bearded Pratt at Christmas, around the time of the murder, HAS a much later date. The argument of Pratt`s brother, who had "organized" the film from work, was that Polaroid prints future dates on it`s films to make them look fresher. This seems plausible, but is it a fact?
3.) (See the statement above by the old Panthers member) If Pratt was not in the Cleaver-faction, why was he expelled from the party by Newton? 
3b.) Why DID Newton and the BPP leadership at first STATE, that Pratt was not in Oakland at the time of the murder? 
3.) The book Last Man Standing denies any contacts between Pratt and George Jackson, Can this be true? Did he know Jackson`s brother? --217.88.60.99 (talk) 09:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Innocent? 

message: The article states that "Bunchy Carter and John Huggins were killed by COINTELPRO infiltrators in the Us Organization." I, however, cannot find any evidence for this claim at all and think that it is very misleading. It should probably be deleted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14F:4403:1A6:C81:93E6:65B7:2F5F (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bunchy Carter and John Huggins killed by COINTELPRO? 
Talk:John G. Morrison

message: At the start, it says he was born in 1838. Further on the DOB is given as 1842.(Histragic (talk) 00:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: In checking the notes I see the discrepancy is already noted there.(Histragic (talk) 00:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  DOB?
Talk:Last Exit (free jazz band)

message: Made by disambiguating Last Exit history to be found there. Pete.Hurd 02:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled