lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Humbert II, Count of Savoy

message: What an effing bloody mess. One is Humbert, not Umberto, but the other is Amedeo!.......DW
I seriously doubt the William, Bishop of Liege listed on the List of Bishops of Liege is the son of Umberto II.  He would have had to have been 135 years old if he were born posthumously.Tetyler 02:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Smegma

message: Why does this article have to have the worst possible and certainly not at all realistic case of neglected hygiene? Wikipedia Commons holds several quite normal cases of smegma secretions as usable photos and for some reason most non-English versions of this page manage to use one of these instead. Without problems or discussions and particularly also without leading viewers on. Is there such a horror of a normal physical excretion among US-editors here that you need to post the most exaggerated picture available? Why not take this for example:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ASmegma_Penis02.mirrored.jpg
:I just reverted the image that was in use as excessive. The image presently there is a cropped version of the image you just linked. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo

message: This and basically every article involving genitals should only have images that are viewed on an "opt in" basis by covering the image and only showing it when clicked on. Articles like this are extremely difficult to read due to the repulsive imagery. Now I know some people might disagree but I think most people would agree with me.
2601:646:8600:2C60:C1BC:7D7F:343B:EDD3 (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: See Help:Hiding images for how you can do that on your end. The community has repeatedly and soundly rejected any and all forms of censoring images directly, including show/hide boxen.  —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 18:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia needs spoiler'd images 

message: Most of the references for this section are half a century old.  Surely urologists have a better understanding of the sources and functions of this substance by now?
Also, I still don't KNOW, after reading the article, whether circumcised males produce smegma at all!
Finally, is it not possible to add a clear picture, similar to that for females, of a normal amount of smegma on a natural (uncircumcised) penis?  Yes, I'm aware of the edit warring and shock! horror! responses of prudes on this talk page over a decade ago.  But there's now no such photo.  Surely an Encyclopedia doesn't let the small minds win?! yoyo (talk) 08:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Male smegma - update and more info needed -
Talk:Petting

message: isn't this also a term in human relations?
: Janet: I thought there's no use getting / into heavy petting / it only leads to trouble / and seat-wetting -- the Rocky Horror Show
-- ;-) -- Tarquin 20:14 Jan 18, 2003 (UTC)
...I think its just a joke.
--Katt
::It's a joke, but a joke that confirms its use as a term in "human relations".  --Daniel C. Boyer 13:37, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

message: *Petting a dictionary definition WP:WINAD. Maximus Rex 05:08, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: From [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion|VfD]]

message: The sexual usage seems to be the most used internationally. Many languages seem to have borrowed the english term with the sexual definition, using native words for "petting animals". For instance, the other Wikipedia pages linked here are referring to the sexual sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.113.112 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 16 February 2005
: So, english-speaking people, is it relevant to have interwikis in THIS artice to word "petting" in other languages if all of them refers to outercourse? Infovarius 20:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Shall I delete them? Infovarius (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other languages 

message: "refers to a human petting an animal—or another human."
Shouldn't this be "refers to a human petting an animal, including another human." ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.26.164.84 (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humans are Animals 

message: There's no page on petting as in stroking non-sexually; it's not "Social grooming is a behaviour in which social animals, including humans, clean or maintain one another's body or appearance." ( Social grooming ). It should probably be here, given it is an actual discernible thing.
AllenY99 (talk) 09:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Animal petting
Talk:Codon

message: How about the dictionary definition as a start where experts in the field can elaborate?
"A three-letter sequence in RNAs that is used to translate the four-letter alphabet of DNA and RNA into the 20-letter amino acid code". ----Bernburgerin (talk) 09:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: I prefer to have a separate article for codon than just redirecting
Talk:Cuniculture

message: Please feel free to run with these (I will edit as well as I have time).  Please include international aspect whenever possible
* livestock used (ie, species)
* Current extent & subsectors (meat/fur) of the industry (a table might be nice)
* history - Done Kerani (talk) 08:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: * Material has been cut & pasted from domestic rabbit to use as a framework but still needs expanding, internationalizing, and clarificationKerani (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for Expansion 

message: The most recent edit ( 19:34, 17 September 2015‎ 2620:72:0:22c:f4d0:a98d:5e07:f14e ) changed the last line in the intro paragraph from "The distribution of rabbit farming varies around the globe, and while it is on the decline in some nations, in others it is expanding." to "For the past decade, world champion rabbit fanciers have used cages constructed with walnut frame and tungsten wire." This is uncited, and a cursory Google search finds no corroboration. In addition, it appears to be bunk, on its face. I only took the time to look it up because it seemed so odd. Is there any reason not to undo this edit? I felt I should ask, but given how little talk there is on this page and that the post has been up for over three months without attention, I will probably revert it anyway myself.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.179.116.155 (talk)  
Agreed, I also saw that. Just fixed it. HoworHow 06:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced claim 
Talk:Das Boot

message: Since I am not a native speaker of the English language, I may be wrong.
But the translation of the tagline does not seem to be accurate:
"Das Boot. Eine Reise an das Ende des Verstandes"
was interpreted as 
"The Boat. A journey to the edge of mind"
It might be interpreted more closely as 
"... A journey to the end of reason"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:2214:12A0:0:0:0:62BB (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation of the tagline 

message: This article is borderline. It is very close to what a movie article should look like, but it isn't exactly there yet. Also, I have questions on where some sections should go, such as where the historical accuracy section belongs and if the set section is necessary. Therefore, I will probably be rearranging this article. A lot of this article is not sourced, but I don't have the time for research, so I have instead tagged some claims in it. After looking at some of the reference sources, the first two are very questionable because they read more like opinion pieces then news articles. In fact, I'm fairly certain that they are opinion pieces, and as such they were not be a reliable source. Unfortunately this means I will be deleting them, and perhaps replacing them with something else. 
CognitiveBehavioralTherapyWizardTheIX (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Organization and Formatting Required

message: It appears to be that I am not able to complete all of the tasks that have been set out for me on this article. Therefore, I ask future editors to try and find sources for the claims that require a citation or to remove those claims entirely. I also ask that editors who can read German check the articles that I was not able to read. It appears to be that there may also be traces of fancruft which would require deletion. Double check that please. Finally, it may be necessary to reorganize the article. Some of the sections are questionable, such as the section which describes the set props and the section that discusses the different home releases and other media that came from the film.
CognitiveBehavioralTherapyWizardTheIX (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Future Edits

message: I was not satisfied with my edits while I was assigned this article. Therefore, I plan on coming back and doing a better job. I have 5 edits planned: 1) The different versions section could be condensed to remove unnecessary speculation and more concisely lay out the different versions. 2) Buchheim’s review doesn’t warrant its own section – this material needs to be cut down (much of it is inappropriate) and moved to the reviews section. 3) The “Historical Accuracy” section risks being Original research 4) There are specific parts of the “Production” section that need verification  5) The paragraph about the dialect of the speaks probably could be moved under production rather than characters. If no one objects, I will be implementing these changes as soon as I can.
CognitiveBehavioralTherapyWizardTheIX (talk) 02:32, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing This Article Again
Talk:Radio City Music Hall

message: In general, Wiki dislikes these lists of random bits of information. I suggest writing these into the article where possible and deleting this section before it runs long and gets out of hand.  The Attractions section is getting a bit unwieldy too. Markhh (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular culture 

message: This article is, basically, a stub with a laundry list attached. I'm not very familiar with the topic, but I'd expect at least a description of the hall and its history. Even the German Wikipedia article has an overview of its history. If you can read German, I would consider this the minimum requirements for this article. It would be nice if someone with knowledge about this landmark venue could add some wisdom to the article... -- megA (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing information 

message: When the Radio City Music Hall opened in 1932 it had a state of the art sound system including 40 RCA PB-31 Ribbon Microphones.
RCA Photophone Type PB-31
Robert.Harker (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  First use of ribbon microphone
Talk:Microsoft PowerPoint

message: Move it to "PowerPoint" since everyone knows it’s owned by Microsoft and never calls it "Microsoft PowerPoint". Just "PowerPoint" is by far the most common name for it. 2A02:C7C:847D:400:85F7:AD31:45A8:2527 (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: The last release listed in the table is PowerPoint 2019 and version 17.0
2018	PowerPoint 2019	17.0	Windows and other OS
Microsoft has not changed the major number of the version release since 2016.
Since then there has been the release of PowerPoint 2021 and PowerPoint 365.
The version available currently is 16.0.16130.20766 for 2021 and 365. Today is 20 Sep 2023 72.19.162.23 (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing and possible incorrect versions. 

message: clik to subtitle 27.123.255.178 (talk) 05:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clik to add title
Talk:1939 in television

message: Where's Waynesburg? -- Zoe
: Rambot data says there's one in Ohio and Pennsylvania. A quick Google search says that Waynesburg College is in Waynesburg, Pennsylvania. I'd start an article but I know nothing about the town or the college. -- Merphant
Thanks, Merphant.  -- Zoe
I'm quite pleased that Wikipedia is virtually the only site not to erronously state that the Mickey Mouse cartoon was interrupted halfway through. I just did a Google search, and pretty much all the results all stated that it was. Huzzah for us! BillyH 14:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Talk:Constitutional monarchy

message: Is Qatar really more constitutional than Eswatini? --37.144.246.117 (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qatar & Eswatini 

message: We have the satement: "Today, the role of the British monarch is by convention effectively ceremonial." But the reference cited is not a third party, it is the website of the royal family and appears out of date (2015). This statement should either be removed or supported by an evidence based reference. An argument against the monarchy being purely ceremonial would be the weekly, private audiences between the king and prime minister. If these are ceremonial why are they private? The palace website says the king advises and warns his ministers (https://www.royal.uk/audiences#:~:text=Political%20Audiences,his%20Prime%20Minister%20%2D%20when%20necessary.) This describes the role of the monarch as more like a consultant or lobbyist than "effectively ceremonial". But independent sources are needed.
RogerHyam (talk) 12:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK Monarchy "Effectively Ceremonial" needs citation support 

message: This is such a strange paragraph:
:"Ceremonial and executive monarchy should not be confused with democratic and non-democratic monarchical systems. For example, in Liechtenstein and Monaco, the ruling monarchs wield significant executive power. However, while they are theoretically very powerful within their small states, they are not absolute monarchs and have very limited de facto power compared to the Islamic monarchs, which is why their countries are generally considered to be liberal democracies. For instance, when Hereditary Prince Alois of Liechtenstein threatened to veto a referendum to legalize abortion in 2011, it came as a surprise because the prince had not vetoed any law for over 30 years (in the end, this referendum failed to make it to a vote)."
Is the article really saying here that the difference between democratic and non-democratic monarchical systems is how often (or how rarely) the monarchy uses its power? lol Am I reading that correctly? Criticalthinker (talk) 09:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not? --95.24.62.201 (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ceremonial versus Executive
Talk:Brigitte Boisselier

message: Put your text for the new page here.Hello Birgitte.My name is Sanne Modig,I`m from sweden.I have read the text about you on the `Swedich` tv-text on the mytelevision.I`m 27 years old,almost 28,in the 5`thift of feburary this year.I`m not so good too write in English,but I trye,I`m very intresste in your program,`baby`.................:)I think that very much people have whrite to you and they,want too be on your program.I`m a very sure aboute this.Please send me a messege.I wait for your mail.If you don`t see this soo seriuse,please mail me back so I dont site and wait for your mail,or your anserw.Please,I really want this,so please call me,on [number deleted for privacy reasons] or send me a mail on [e mail redacted]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.208.150.161 (talk • contribs) 
:I am sure you can call Brigitte at her day job at Clonaid, loser.  you need a net dating service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.104.158 (talk • contribs) 
::Nice.  Being nasty isn't necessary.  -- Zoe
:::Is it a joke??? --noaccount —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.40.177.216  (talk • contribs) 
::::I don't blame you, Sanne; she is kind of hot, but I don't think this is an appropriate use of the talk page.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: She's at least 50 years old.Kmarinas86 19:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Solicitation of Brigitte Boisselier for dating/marriage

message: Has Boisselier disappeared from the public eye after her announcements a few years ago?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: But what has she done lately?

message: We just use people's names in articles, see Albert Einstein for example. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of "Dr"

message: We obviously have an expert writer fixing up the article on Brigitte Boisselier. In a mere span of days, this article has moved from a stub to what is clearly is a valid candidate for Good article status. Wonderful! (link to recent edits)siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk 14:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much, I'm glad to hear that you like it. It was a pleasure to research and write! Mark Arsten (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits are excellent

message: Photo provided here doesn't look at all like the photos on Google Images, incl. screenshots from C-SPAN. What gives? Time to find a new image? QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this photo accurate?
Talk:File Transfer Protocol

message: Many webhosts claim that a unique IP is required to set up an anonymous ftp server. It is never explained why a static IP is necessary. Can the article address this point? Why can't we have anonymous download from an ftp server with a shared IP? Thanks. AugustinMa (talk) 09:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, as long as both client and server recognize each other IP for the whole length of an ftp session, the server can serve the client. Just follow the actions during an ftp session to see where each party must know the exact IP of the other. Other then that, the server can live in any IP. It also could change its IP from time to time. webhosts tend to use shortcuts for different reasons. 217.132.74.2 (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  unique/static IP required for anonymous ftp?? 

message: For each possible client command, I would like to know the proper server response. I'm creating my own FTP server software and want to know EXACTLY the signal that the server should send when the client calls PASV. I know it should contain the IP address and the port of the file server, but what is the format of that response? Is it "227 123.123.123.123:12345" or is it something else? Please post this kind of info here on Wikipedia. I can't find this specific info anywhere on the net.
Animedude5555 (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need some specific info on proper server responses for various FTP client commands. 
Talk:To Kill a Mockingbird

message: The redirect To Assassinate a Mockingbird has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:To Assassinate a Mockingbird]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: 205.133.211.194 (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP (talk • contribs) 19:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2023 

message: the first paragraph in the themes section is useless, irrelevant opinion and the people cited are not anyone of such a status that their opinions should be regarded with any seriousness. It should be removed because it reads like it was written by a spiteful high school freshman. AmbiguousWitch (talk) 07:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  First paragraph in themes section is irrelevant  

message: "To Kill a Mockingbird has become a classic of modern American literature"
Is it ok to call something a "classic" as a factual statement? Even with something like "To kill a Mockingbird" it seems like a subjective thing to me, rather than saying "it is widely regarded as a classic". I'm asking out of curiosity. Dornwald (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Classic"
Talk:Monty Python's Flying Circus

message: I know this has been discussed before, but I don't think the "transnational themes" section is particularly relevant or that this is a notable aspect of Monty Python. Given that the section  is only based on two sources, both of which are by the same author, it seems that one person's hobby horse has been given more prominence than it merits. Should we delete it? MFlet1 (talk) 06:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transnational themes (again) 

message: There's another article named "Monty Python", with mostly the same content: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Python
I suggest that article be amalgamated with this and the result published here.  zwaa 11:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge this with the "Monty Python" article. 

message: I can't speak for what the group actually intended at the time, but Richthofen's squadron was named after an already extant term used to describe a traveling circus, in the sense of moving often and quickly. The aviators adopted the term because the word 'flying' took on a new meaning when applied to an aviation uni, but mostly because the unit was housed in tents and frequently moved around to different sectors of the front on little notice, so it essentially meant 'traveling circus'. The flying circus aspect came from the way they lived and traveled on the ground, and was not meant to imply anything circus-like or humorous about their actual flying, which was dead serious and professional. In any case, unless the group themselves stated that they were thinking of WW1 aviators, there is no particular reason to think they weren't simply adopting the same term as Richthofen did, rather than copying him specifically. A Flying Circus is a thing even without WW1 aviation.
64.222.88.237 (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flying Circus 

message: The redirect And now for something completely different (quote) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 16:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:And now for something completely different (quote)]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Republican guard

message: Would anyone object to me making this into two pages? (e.g. French Republican Guard and Iraqi Republican Guard)
:It sounds like a good idea.  -- Zoe
:: I moved them and re-pointed all the links - should this page be deleted? (and how do you do that?) - stewacide
Hmmm. Now a Disambiguation page--Tomtom9041 (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was: moved   (non-admin closure)   JC7V (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Republican Guard →  – Per MOS:MILTERMS – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 22:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 14 December 2018