lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Cobra Turn

message: This is more than I can do. But shouldn't this be in the list on Basic_fighter_maneuvers? BenTrem (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add to maneuvers page? 

message: Isn't this maneuver already possible by helicopters? Jigen III 10:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Can anyone provide an image or a diagram of this manuver?
-167.206.228.67 (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image or Diagram
Talk:Premise

message: Are "premise" and "axiom" synonyms? Pgr94 10:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Pgr94 15:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: initial standpoint (in order to elaborate a theory) = αρκτοθεώρηση  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4118:6E00:49CE:869E:734F:326 (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Premises and axioms 

message: I propose to move the text about a premise in discourse or informal logic to a new page. There is a lot of information there and more can be added. This new page could be called something like Premise (logic) or just called "Premise" and the rest of the entries moved to Premise (disambiguation). What do people think? Grumpyyoungman01 23:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it was a good idea. Done. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Premise in discourse moved to a new page? 

message: HBO ur CNN temptation 2409:4042:4E9A:DA1B:0:0:7EC8:C50F (talk) 08:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fgju8 TV jk
Talk:Elegant Gypsy

message: Released: 1 July 1977 and Recorded: May-September 1977 cannot be both true. Please correct.--217.237.18.219 10:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Recording or Release Date 

message: Allmusic has no mention of him in the credits, so what source has him playing on the album, I wonder. Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 18:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chick Corea's Participation 

message: Be interested to know where and by whom this album was recorded, mixed and mastered. zazpot (talk) 06:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recording location, engineer credits
Talk:Cwmbran Centre

message: Renaming article - don't have an autoconfirmed account to change the name of article
The shopping centre has been renamed as Cwmbran Centre, please could someone change this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by CwmbranCentre (talk • contribs) 12:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming article - don't have an autoconfirmed account to change the name of article
Talk:Croatian Railways

message: Is it possible to find it somewhere and put it as a picture in the article? It would help a lot to improve the article completeness.85.178.132.43 (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of railways 
Talk:Hylton v. United States

message: Is is not worth giving some background on the case? I remember my constitutional interpretation professor making a big deal about Hamilton and Hylton essentially making this whole case up just to prove that the government could impose a tax on income.
https://books.google.com/books?id=DzcMCAAAQBAJ&lpg=PT116&ots=-WlrD_0q6E&dq=supreme%20court%20hylton%20case%20or%20controversy&pg=PT116#v=onepage&q=supreme%20court%20hylton%20case%20or%20controversy&f=false
Sorry I can't find a more broadly accessible source than this Google Books link. I'm reluctant to write this up myself as I'm no legal scholar and haven't done any writing for Wikipedia before. No sense of what the conventions are. Volfied (talk) 03:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That is very interesting, I didn't know about the behind-the-scenes machinations of this case.  I think it would be worthwhile to add this background to the article.  Unfortunately I don't have much time to devote to Wikipedia but I'd be happy to review any new contributions before publishing. Fireatsea (talk) 18:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hylton as a breach of case or controversy with background 
Talk:Army Medical College, Rawalpindi

message: I'm working on cleaning up this bad boy.Bddmagic (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Swift v. Tyson

message: The discussion of common law in terms of transcendant v. local is obscure and confusing.  The old common law of England, incorporated into US law by the Constitution, was a body of precepts from English case law while local rules would be something we would find cognizable as rules of civil procedure.  In Swift we see the federal court apply its own rule of substantive law regarding a holder in due course.  Is this what Brandeis found so offending in Swift in his decision in Erie v. Tompkins?  Under diversity jurisdiction we go through a whole drill to determine which state's substantive law to apply?  If the contract says it will be governed by Delaware law then the US court must follow its rules, its UCC iteration which might vary in some minute way from say Nebraska law?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.198.27 (talk) 05:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:United States v. Klein

message: While it may be true that Lincoln issued the proclamation in 8 Dec 1863, Lincoln was assassinated in 1865, and this case took place in 1871.  Lincoln's successor Andrew Jackson was probably the president who actually signed Klein's pardon.  Perhaps this should be noted in the article.  The article leads one to think, but does not say it directly, that Lincoln issued the pardon.
On the other hand, the case itself does not mention when Klein received such a pardon, so perhaps it is not strictly relevant. 129.98.229.79 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 18:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Lincoln Responsibility for Pardon Proclamation

message: What act is referred to? "The United States Congress had passed an act in 1863 that permitted an owner of property confiscated during the war to receive the proceeds from the sale of the confiscated property."Big Red (talk) 18:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Congressional Act Involving Confiscated Property
Talk:Munn v. Illinois

message: I've found and taken care of a few obvious vandalisms in this page, such as the "fun fact" that Munn loved doughnuts, but some could remain. Ye Be Warned.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.25.226 (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: "The Munn case allowed states to regulate certain businesses within their borders", yet the ruling is "regarded as a milestone in the growth of federal government regulation". I understand that the point of the ruling is that public services can regulate private institutions essential to people's welfare, but who was supposed to do the regulation the State government or the Federal government.--99.27.172.244 (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction
Talk:Strauder v. West Virginia

message: I don't know how to edit the information box in the top right of the entry. The date decided for this case has not been correctly entered, and the date argued may also need correcting. The currently entered dates (Argued October 20–21, 1879 / Decided March 1, 1879) are clearly erroneous; you can't decide the case and then argue it! Multiple reliable sources give more reasonable dates, but there are some small differences among them:
Argued. Oct 19 - 20, 1879. Decided. Feb 29, 1880 (see http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100536518)
or
ARGUED Oct 20 - 21, 1879. DECIDED Mar 1, 1880 (see https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/100us303#!)
Jk180 (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:United States v. Harris

message: You added this alias in 2006; an IP changed it to "Kase" in 2020 without comment. Try as I might, I can't find any sources using the term (with either spelling) that predate your edit—in other words, I can't rule out citogenesis. Do you happen to recall where you'd seen that phrase at the time you added it?  -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:12, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ku Klux Case"
Talk:Yick Wo v. Hopkins

message: I don't think that's a dick. I heard a professor say that YICK WO is the name of the laundry, which is owned/operated by partners Lee Yick and Wo Lee; somehow  the error made it into the court record.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.197.131.163 (talk) 06:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Did this case go directly to the US Supreme Court?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dngrogan (talk • contribs) 10:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing section?

message: The article says that "Yick Wo" was the name of the laundry owned by Sang Lee, but then later goes on to use the name Yick Wo as if it belonged to a person. So, which is it? Tad Lincoln (talk) 06:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing
Talk:Alpine Tunnel

message: I was just hiking on the east side of the alpine tunnel portal - the 3 miles to (ghost town) hancock are now closed to motorized vehicles, altho i think that bicycles are allowed. the article implies that vehicles are permitted on the railroad right-of-way. Pollira (talk) 02:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: I had an (unsuccessful) opportunity to visit the west portal about two weeks ago. I expected the road to be much like it was in the 1980s when my family visited on dual-sport motorcycles, but this time we found very slow going using a 4x4 vehicle and only traveled perhaps half the distance on FR839 before returning due to lack of time. Upon returning a local resident advised that the palisades section had been damaged by landslides and is not passable except on foot (or possibly bicycles or horses) at this time. There is a proposal to repair it in the coming year. 
Also note: an online search for Alpine Tunnel results in numerous items and very few of them say that the west portal cannot be reached in a vehicle. One, a National Forest Service page, is among the Lincoln NF(New Mexico) pages although the Tunnel is actually in the Gunnison NF and an identical page can be found there. Also note: a brief attempt to request a correction by the NFS revealed that the procedure is rife with bureaucratic (insert your favorite excrement reference), such as requiring a specific written request.   wendell (talk) 16:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alpine Tunnel West Portal
Template talk:GEDSB schools

message: In this template, Brantford Collegiate Institute is stated as "Brantford." While this is not wrong, the most common name for the school is "BCI." Maybe it says "Brantford" for a reason, I don't know, but it was just a thought I had.
This change, if decided upon, would not be very hard to perform, but I want to discuss whether it should be changed or not.--Diriector Doc (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal change
Talk:Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena

message: Just in case anyone is wondering why there are 21 sources in an article this short - information about the group tends to take up 2 paragraphs of a 9 paragraph article. Seeing as they've been around for 20+ years, lot of the information overlaps (lovely for verifiability but...) - so each sources refers to a single notable thing. There could've been 40 references, but I thought one for each fact was enough to ensure proof of notability and veracity of statements. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hundreds of references
Talk:Coffin v. United States

message: This case needs an adequate ruling summary. The one currently in place is a poor substitute, clearly visibly having been taken directly from the middle of a sentence of the opinion quote! and quite god-awfully so, it's not even a full sentence. I'm going to make the paragraph English, but someone needs to properly summarize the actual case ruling, in addition the existing remark on the precedential establishment of the Presumption of Innocence of the accused. 68.110.212.162 (talk) 01:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary 

message: According to whom? This article is far from encyclopedic. -- 98.108.206.28 (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the most interesting aspect" 

message: The lead says this case "established the presumption of innocence of persons accused of crimes". The presumption of innocence article says it is a much older idea, which is surely correct - certainly all the nations which use presumption of innocence in their legal systems did not derive it from a late-19th-century US Supreme Court case.
And the text below the lead seems to say that the Supreme Court recognized the presumption of innocence as already part of the law. So it appears that the SC "reaffirmed" the presumption rather than "establishing" it.
So what *is* the importance of the case? Did the Supreme Court strengthen the presumption of innocence? Is it that the SC required the presumption of innocence to be explicitly stated to the jury? Or something else. Vultur~enwiki (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  a possible issue - "established"?
Talk:Williams v. Mississippi

message: By not bothering to mention whether the plaintiff was hanged due to this crass miscarriage of justice, this article is as disrespectful and oblivious of the plaintiff's constitutional and human rights as the Supreme Court. 
In addition, this article is sorely missing a section on when the Supreme Court reversed the blatant disregard of the Constitution evident in this decision. --Espoo (talk) 04:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the fate of Mr. Williams should be mentioned. It appears that he was in fact hanged on September 28, 1899. However, I have not yet found a usable source for this. Most accounts of the case do not mention what happened to Henry Williams, and the one that does is a blog post which cites to a book which I have not seen: https://blogs.dickinson.edu/hist-404pinsker/2010/11/03/williams-v-mississippi-1898-the-debate-over-black-suffrage/. To further complicate matters, what appears to be a comprehensive list of executions by Mississippi does not include Mr. Williams. It would be great if someone could track this down.Bill (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  plaintiff  hanged or not?! 

message: The Mississippi Constitution of 1890 did not include a grandfather clause, and Williams v. Mississippi therefore had nothing to do with a grandfather clause.  See Journal of the Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention (Jackson 1890).  I therefore have removed the reference to the grandfather clause in the article. Wexfeld (talk) 17:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  No grandfather clause in 1890 Mississippi Constitution
Talk:British Heavyweight Championship

message: Isn't this misleading (first line)? Shouldn't it say something like ostensibly "competed" for?--Kotniski (talk) 09:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your right, it is misleading. I re-wrote the intro making it more in keeping with other articles of its type. --- Paulley (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 10:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Competed for?
Talk:Downes v. Bidwell

message: The article cites FindLaw for the text "... two national governments exist; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions, the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument. By exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will result ... We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism ... It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of a government outside the supreme law of the land finds lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence."
Looking at FindLaw a few moments ago, I find the similar but not word-for-word text "The idea prevails with some-indeed, it found expression in agruments at the bar-that we have in this country substantially or practically two national governments; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise. It is one thing to give such a latitudinarian construction to the Constitution as will bring the exercise of power by Congress, upon a particular occasion or upon a particular subject, within its provisions. It is quite a different thing to say that Congress may, if it so elects, proceed outside of the Constitution. The glory of our American system [182 U.S. 244, 381]   of government is that it was created by a written constitution which protects the people against the exercise of arbitrary, unlimited power, and the limits of which instrument may not be passed by the government it created, or by any branch of it, or even by the people who ordained it, except by amendment or change of its provisions."  (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=182&invol=244)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkpixel (talk • contribs) 03:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Muller v. Oregon

message: It's unclear which section of the Constitution was used in the decision: the Freedom of contract inherent in due process clause of 14th Amendment or the Article I Contracts Clause. The revert to status quo is procedural  in absence of good information, not a judgment on the merits. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede; which contract protections? 

message: It seems that this article is written in a way that is quite confusing and possibly contains too much (or irrelevant) information, especially in the opening section. It also contains some stylistic issues (Quote formatting, for example, is inconsistent), along with general grammatical and sentence structure problems (The final sentence of the first paragraph contains four semicolons). I don't think I have adequate enough experience editing Wikipedia to make these substantial changes, so I wanted to make sure to make these issues aware to anyone who would possibly be able to fix them. HonoraryGlass (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible edits
Talk:Chameleon (Mortal Kombat)

message: How come his alignment is evil? We don't know his actual Armageddon storyline, isn't that possible that he turned out good? I think we should change his alignment into unknown. What do you think? Master Spider 15:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is supposed to be Unknown. I must have missed the edit where that was changed. EVula 15:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alignment 

message: it says that he only uses signature moves that the other ninjas no longer use, even though all the ninjas moves that he has are still used by the ninjas in MK:A (scorpion's teleport kick, sub-zero's cold shoulder)Themasterofdisguise 16:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed. MarphyBlack 16:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signature moves under Trivia 

message: Chameleon doesn't appear in the PS version of MK Trilogy! I own it and he isn't there. I'm removing it. Ace Fighter 00:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that was LOL. Do your research.--Iamstillhiro1112 01:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Chameleon is in the PS version and you can fight him in the lost treasures. Before you fight him, a message reads: "Your reward is an opportunity to fight one of Shao Kahn's deadliest warriors." so Chameleon is evil. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dmr2hn1 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Playstation appearence 

message: Where does that Chameleon concept art come from? To me I'm guessing its a fan made image as I've never seen or heard of it before.--Iamstillhiro1112 01:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The image was uploaded by user The S. He scanned it from an old Electronic Gaming Monthly magazine, along with the Khameleon picture. I actually asked The S this same question about these two pictures a while ago. You can see that whole discussion here. MarphyBlack 01:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. Thanks for the prompt reply.--Iamstillhiro1112 20:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concept Art
Talk:TOCA Race Driver 3

message: Actually, the US version also came out, not just UK. Professional Gamer 23:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US version 

message: The article is just a bloody mess.  Someone tag it with the "Cleanup required" box.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by HashiriyaGDB (talk • contribs) 05:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Anyone taking on the task of cleaning up should take particular note of WP:NOT#INFO. A comprehensive list of everything in the game does not constitute an encyclopaedia entry. -Ahruman (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Disorganized as hell

message: I spent a bit of time deleting the hoards of unencyclopedic information (according to WP:NOT#INFO) from this page. This page was the worst I have ever seen on Wikipedia.
Things that need to be done:
*Write an overview section describing gameplay and game modes
*Discuss critical reception of the game
*Add correct a car list
Hopefully we can get this straightened out! CuttlefishTech (talk) 12:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After my previous efforts were thwarted by ClueBot (curses!), I redid most of my changes section by section. However, there are still a bunch of sections that should be re-written. CuttlefishTech (talk) 23:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: HUGE Cleanup 5/5/08

message: It should say at the start the game is also called V8 Supercars 3 (In Australia) (GT4GTR (talk) 08:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Also called V8 Supercars 3 

message: lets get this sorted in australia its v8 supercars 3  here in the uk toca race driver 3 in germany dtm race driver 3 professional gamer 3 in the usa al sorted  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lev23 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  toca 3 

message: Actor who did a huge role, would be worth mentioning him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Cotcher  — Preceding unsigned comment added by HelpMeChoose55 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention Tom Cotcher
Talk:Guinn v. United States

message: This is the correct word; disenfranchisement has an extra syllable that is not needed.--Parkwells (talk) 23:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Disfranchisement

message: If it was a unanimous decision, the article should say so... AnonMoos (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Unanimous?