lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Mutiny

message: question: wikipedia wasn't around a century ago. how and why is a section of this article that out of date? this a sad and pitiful state of affairs. Saganatsu 22:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Fastifex copied the Britannica article on military law into this article. That’s how. The Britannica text was written in or before 1911. That’s why. I think the 1911 text might as well be deleted, but Fastifex seems to disagree. Any ideas? —xyzzyn 22:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Updated. Richard75 21:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  out of date by a century 

message: when a soldier disobeys commands? Please reply to my userpage (yes, not talk page, I will get an annoying yellow bar for the next day). 76.16.191.46 (talk) 04:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is it called... 

message: please, also mention the famous mutiny on the Zeven Provincien in the 1930s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HNLMS_De_Zeven_Provinci%C3%ABn_(1909)
Henkberg55 (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mutiny on the HMS De Zeven Provincien 

message: I put "organized" into the header.
Originally the header said:
Mutiny is a conspiracy among a group of individuals
I changed it to:
Mutiny is a conspiracy among a organized group of individuals
84.215.50.140 (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mutiny's are typically conducted by organized groups. 

message: I have a bit of trouble with the La Amistad entry. The slaves hardly owned any loyalty to the ship's master and crew. If I get no objection here, I will add a qualifier to this effect, comparing the slaves to kidnapping victims. thestor (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  La Amistad
Talk:Marco Antonio Rodríguez

message: Please do not add information about criticism. It is not notable, all referees are criticised from many sides. Also this is heavy POV pushing since this "info" have been added here only by English users or non-users. -- Darwinek 22:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I hereby refer to Felix Brych's talk page, where Wiki user AIRcorn repeatedly argues that isolated events that are rather anecdotal in the context of a referee's career should have no disproportionate weight on his wiki page. With this in mind, I suggest removing any mention of the Italy vs. Uruguay controversy from Chiquimarco's page, as:
* Marchisio's red card was 50/50, some people think it was justified, some people think it was harsh;
* He couldn't possibly see Suárez bite Chiellini, and therefore cannot be considered at fault (example: no mention of Sándor Puhl failing to see Mauro Tassotti elbowing Luis Enrique in '94);
* His career went unaffected by the incident, as he even continued to officiate at the same tournament. --Bodofzt (talk) 04:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  has captured my thoughts correctly. I have edited this article accordingly before (see this diff). It seems a lot was added back in later. I would support is removal again. AIRcorn (talk) 08:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue weight: Italy vs. Uruguay (2014 WC)
Talk:List of helicopter prison escapes

message: Add The Bridge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bridge_(Agents_of_S.H.I.E.L.D.)) to the list of fictional helicopter escapes (TV)
Emanb29 (talk) 00:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  B E C K Y  S A Y L E S  22:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2016 

message: This page was mentioned in episode 26 of the Technical Difficulties podcast, first released 6 June 2013.[] Particular reference was made to the old success/failure symbols. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 22:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical Difficulties
Talk:Jared Ingersoll

message: The personal history information may be a copyright violation. It appeared on this article as a text dump by a non-registered user (see ). It has subsequently been edited and wikified. This needs to be checked. --Lendorien 15:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's from here. This may be public domain, I'm not sure. --Cherry blossom tree 16:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is. Garion96 (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if it's public domain, it needs to be sourced! --Lendorien 15:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could have sworn someone already did that. Either way, it's fixed now. Garion96 (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright vio??
Talk:Kuzma Minin

message: From my talkpage on ruwiki
:Уважаемый Alex Bakharev! Помогите, пожалуйста, исправить статью en:Kuzma Minin. В ней написано: Other historians, like Kostomarov, considered him an ill-tempered, stubborn and unscrupulous man. Поскольку ссылки на источник нет, то я предполагаю, что это перевод из русской Вики. Но на самом деле в русскоязычной статье Кузьма Минин слова Костомарова переданы неточно. На самом деле Костомаров пишет: «Меры Минина были круты и жестоки, но время было чересчур жестокое и крутое: приходилось спасать существование народа и державы на грядущие времена». Вот здесь находится статья Костомарова: http://www.magister.msk.ru/library/history/kostomar/kostom30.htm Я не достаточно хорошо знаю английский и не знаю, как точно перевести эту фразу. Не могли бы Вы мне помочь? С уважением  No evidence 15:53, 22 декабря 2013 (UTC)
It appears that Kostomarov's opinion is misstated Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kostomarov's opinion 
Talk:Xavier Serbiá

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: There have been an effort to add a line to this stub biography mentioning the fact that once, while Serbiá was a member of a boy band, a group of fans grabbed him off-stage. As a reference, a link to a youtube copy of a tv program covering the incident is used.
I fail to see how is this trivial fact relevant enough to be mentions on Xavier Serbiá's biography. Why should we give special weight to this event among many other similar facts that have taken place on his life as a boy band member? What was special about that specific group of fans?
Also, the youtube link to a tv program is a primary source that just shows the fact took place, not that it's worth mentioning. --damiens.rf 17:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion you were correct to remove it, it's utterly non-notable. The incident was obviously not a big event in his life, looking at the video he wasn't even worried - it is possible that he instigated it himself. The sentence's sole purpose seems to have been its use as a way of getting a Youtube link into the article. YSSYguy (talk) 14:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using youtube video as a "reference" to a trivial fact
Talk:Dos Passos Prize

message: This article has been reverted by a bot to  as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 13:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem
Talk:Regius Professor of Divinity

message: Any reason this page shouldn't be split into two? Dsp13 (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Split into 2 pages?

message: I've removed the entry "Guy Wygan (1560)" from the Cambridge list. It has been there from the start, but it doesn't check out. It looks rather like a transposition of 1540 for Edward Wigan, alias Wygan, alias Guy, by somebody misreading 1540 as 1560. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone into the list provenance, and have had an email confirmation that it was caused by the date confusion. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Guy Wygan

message: There was also a Regius Professor of Divinity at Trinity College, Dublin. Not so easy to track down details, but it appears to have been founded under James I, and presumably came to an end in the 1920s. So here are some names to build up from:
*1790-1819 James Drought
*1819 Richard Graves (dean)
*1829-1850 Charles Richard Elrington
*1850-1862 Joseph Henderson Singer
*1852-1866 Samuel Butcher (bishop)
*1866 George Salmon
*John Gwynn (professor) 1827–1917.
Charles Matthews (talk) 10:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: started... In ictu oculi (talk) 13:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Dublin

message: I've removed John Randolph (bishop of London) (1783-1807) from the Cambridge list and the associated navigational template. These were his dates as Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford, and it seems extraordinarily improbable that he should have occupied the Cambridge chair simultaneously, and indeed that the ODNB would fail to mention it if he had. DuncanHill (talk) 00:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Randolph
Talk:Marilyn McCord Adams

message: Does anybody happen to know when Professor Adams was ordained? Somebody did mention to me that it was arranged hastily in order for her to fulfil the requirement that the Reg.Prof. of Divinity is a priest, but he may have been talking about another female potential Reg.Prof. to whom that was going to happen if she were appointed instead.--217.134.126.105 19:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ordination

message: The link to her Oxford home page is dead;  I believe she's retired.  I left it there in case there's some replacement. 64.252.129.170 (talk) 02:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to Oxford page dead
Portal talk:Australia/News

message: Hi the use of the template    means no date shows up now for me.  I use Mozilla as my browser.  I really couldn't understnd the rationale for the use of this.  I had no problems before it was used - or at least I didn't realise I had problems before and I do have problems now.--A Y Arktos\talk 22:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The date isn't intended to show up with this template. It's there as an editors note. I don't believe its necessary to visibly date the events. --cj | talk 03:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why the date should be visible only to editors.  I think it is useful information to readers too - did that happen yesterday or last week? ...--A Y Arktos\talk 10:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point of the date being visible to editors is to assist in maintenance - it allows us to keep track of chronology. It probably does have use for readers as well, but I can't see that its all-in-all beneficial. It's not at all typical for headlines to be dated.--cj | talk 11:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the issue is here the event can lag by a week or so.  Headlines are often not dated because they are usually covering events in the last 24 hours.  Australia is blessed with a lack of interesting times. As a vote from one reader, I would prefer to see dates back again.--A Y Arktos\talk 11:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is true, I suppose. I'm not particularly fussed either way.--cj | talk 12:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer having the dates too. It'd be nice to know how current an event is without having to check the markup. Rebecca 04:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dates it is then :)--cj | talk 07:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you :-) --A Y Arktos\talk 09:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visibility of dates 

message: Hi the instructions (hidden by comments) at the top of this page show:
* The entry must be previously noted in the main column of the Current events in Australia and New Zealand page.
Given that Current events in Australia and New Zealand now redirects to Portal:Current events do we still mean that?  Even Portal:Current events/Southeast Asia hasn't been updated for more than a month! I am happy to update this page - I see it occasionally on WP:AWNB and it hasn't been updated for more than a month which seems a bit sad.  I am not really interested in updating the other pages.--Matilda talk 23:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated instructions?
Talk:Queer Duck

message: I've merged in the info from Adam Seymour Duckstein.  It may need some cleanup, but the whole article needs a bit. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge completed 

message: Generally a good article, but the episode descriptions sound like they were lifted from an official web page or other non-encyclopedic source PurpleChez (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non Encyclopedic
Talk:Jetsons: The Movie

message: This article has had its infobox tag removed by a cleanup using AWB.
Any concerns please leave me a message at my talk page. RWardy 20:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "needs infobox" tag 

message: They spell THANKS GEORGE on the asteroid at the end of the movie, not THANK YOU GEORGE.  Also, I believe the little Grungee they meet is named SQUEAP and not SQUEAK.  I watched this movie last night and it sounds like they say SQUEAP.Morgan Cohen 14:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Two Mistakes
Talk:Hawkgirl (animated)

message: Batman: The Animated Series/Animated Series Batman (character)
During the creation of of that "late" article I always stated that it was a draft or unproject. It took weeks until Bennon cleverly figured out what I was trying to do was a sandbox (which I didn't know how to do until now).
Now everyone can edit it with no time pressure and talk about what to do with the info when i's finally finished. I coul'd have created the sandbox in my own talk page, but I don't want anyone to assume I "OWN" the project. Feel free to erase, add and source stuff to improve it.--T-man, the wise 22:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Batman: The Animated Series/Animated Series Batman (character)|Animated Series Batman (character)]] sandbox

message: I don't know if this article is going to last, but some shaping would be a great thing. I already started with the infobox and some sections.
I'd say the next step would be some sourcing Question (comics) style. 
I guess in the case of this page no effort would be wasted since in the worst case, the  article would be merged back to Hawkwoman.--T-man, the wise 00:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If it last
Talk:Grady (American TV series)

message: For some reason, all of the information on this page in regards to when the show actually ran was incorrect. It aired during the 1975-1976 season, not 1973-1974. This came to my attention because the folks at TV Shows on DVD used the previous info, so their write-up on the show's DVD release incorrectly refers to it as airing from 1973-1974 as well. I fixed it with help from epguides.com  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:3C3:C101:F540:1865:F0C2:9D0E:DDE1 (talk) 18:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original run and episode air dates were all wrong
Talk:Thomas Erastus

message: The expository information about Erastus seems to be copied directly from the  Christian Classics Ethereal Library without any form of citation, not to mention being somewhat misleading and strangely phrased. My Immoral (talk) 05:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs Editing
Talk:H. (song)

message: Could it stand for Jesus H. Christ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.166.101.201  (talk • contribs) 13:15, 20 September 2009
:That's what stood out for me when I first saw the title. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 05:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Devo H, his son. Oh Frustration (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: H.
Talk:Ecclesiastical province

message: Pl wiki and some other wikis have separate entries on the concept of metropolis. The tiny pl wiki entry at :pl:Metropolia (religia) and :pl:Prowincja kościelna states that metropolis is the type of the ecclesiastical province specific to some branches of Christianity. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we have an article on [[metropolis (religion)]]? 

message: What Anglican church has anything to do with the article??? Anglican Church appeared long after (centuries after) the term was established. The information only adds to confusion. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anglican???
Talk:House of Bishops

message: Strangely, another article about the "Church of the Saviour" seems to have been appended to this one on the House of Bishops. But when I went to edit it out, the additional article did not appear in the edit window. Does anyone know what's going on here? MishaPan (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Appended article
Talk:Nomothetic and idiographic

message: I am struggling as the dictionary seems to provide a far greater clarity than this article.
: idiographic - Relating to or concerned with discrete or unique facts or events  eg "History is an idiographic discipline, studying events that cannot be repeated"
:nomothetic -  Of or relating to the study or discovery of general scientific laws.
Is it that the evolution of the terms as decsribed above is at variance with Kant's definitions?  Could we clarify between the two?
In addition there seems to be a need to relate the article to the other article on nomothetic already on Wiki
LookingGlass (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  accuracy? 

message: It would be a mistake to confuse idiographic and nomothetic approaches to research with inductive and deductive logic. Idiographic and nomothetic are two differing ways of looking at research. Idiographic is all about trying to understand the individual person or case. Much history does indeed fall into this category. For example, we might want to know about Hitler in great depth to make sense of what he did. The nomothetic approach would be to look across leaders to find common causation for their actions. 
An added twist is that we should take account of data gathering and data analysis as these two key phases could be idiographic or nomothetic even within the same study. For example, imagine a researcher conducted lots of one-to-one interviews to understand each person's job satisfaction in real detail. This would be idiographic data gathering. Then, once all this data had been gathered, the researcher might ask what similarities exist across the various people. This would be nomothetic data analysis. Any and all combinations are possible.
Induction and deduction are more about the way conclusions are drawn. Data gathered and analysed via idiographic or nomothetic approaches to research could be tackled with either inductive or deductive logic.
I cannot comment on Kant as I am not an expert on his work. These comments come from modern usage of the terms idiographic and nomothetic in applied psychology.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.138.34 (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  'expert' opinion 

message: "Davis Millon states that when spotting and diagnosing personality disorders..." There is no such person as Davis Millon. The book he cites was written by Theodore Millon and R.D. Davis Disorders of Personality: DSM-IV and Beyond  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.20.26.242 (talk) 18:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Referencing 

message: Nomothetic and idiographic are terms used by Kantian philosopher Wilhelm Windelband to describe two distinct approaches to knowledge ...
The alternative to separate bold items would be: 
Nomothetic and idiographic is a phrase used by Kantian philosopher Wilhelm Windelband to juxtapose two distinct approaches to knowledge ...
Those are the choices as I see it. — MaxEnt 02:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bold style number agreement
Category talk:Liechtenstein stubs

message: There are two reasons for adding this stub as well:
# A number of editors of geographical articles search for stubs to expand primarily on the type of item rather than location.
# It is easier for WP:WSS to judge if and when a separate Liechtenstein-geo-stub will be needed. Valentinian (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Euro-geo-stub
Talk:Ocean Ou

message: why did he hide his face?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.116.135 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people are ashamed of their looks *shrug*. Living in a society permeated by good-looking, MTV-esque idols like Jay Chou or Rainie Yang, it's little wonder he might have thought his looks weren't "commercial" enough. --ryan-d 09:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Church of Bangladesh

message: A proposal is being floated at the project page that there be a  standard format for organising each article about national provinces of the Anglican Communion, including this one. Please consider participating in the straw vote and discussion. Cheers! Fishhead64 21:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Uniform format proposal

message: Apart from the Traditional Anglican Communion, the article should really consider verifying whether groups within the Church of Bangladesh have ever sought a similar canonical structure to the proposed personal ordinariates. ADM (talk) 05:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk:Personal Ordinariate