lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Lexden

message: The Lexden village boundary would be good if anyone knows where it lies.
Also, I am confused by the statement that Lexden is cut in half by the modern bypass, Spring Lane, as Spring Lane is neither modern nor a bypass (though it could be used as one), and very narrow and winding.  Would it be correct to assume that Lexden's Spring Lane is, in fact, cut in half by the modern (1930s) Colchester Bypass (aka Cymbeline Way aka Avenue of Remembrance).  If so, the 'offending' sentence could be modified. 87.113.62.23 (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Area defined as Lexden needs clarification and what's this about Spring Lane being a modern bypass? 
Talk:Telekinesis

message: I came here for an encyclopedic entry on Telekinesis, not trying to be convinced it wasn’t real. I wanted like a history, an explanation of its use in pop culture etc. Instead I got an edge lord Facebook response to a post I never saw. There is place for the fact it’s not real, but there is no information here whatsoever 2603:7000:A703:C99C:41FF:BF7D:C56C:3F7D (talk) 13:42, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Read ALL the article, particularly the Belief section. Roxy the dog  14:10, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  You wanted a pop culture/in-universe treatment of the subject? Try . - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, at the very least the debunking section should come after the description of what it is and its history.  Flicking through some random other languages (French, Italian, German, Norwegian) one sees the pattern you would expect of 1. what the thing is, followed by 2. people's opinions of it.  It's only the English one which is putting "reactions/rebuttals" before the full description of the subject itself and the claims it makes.  It reads more like a lengthy polemic than an encyclopaedic article.  Unfortunately this does seem to be quite common on English Wikipedia. 86.19.7.12 (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrible Page
Talk:Impeccability

message: Regarding the Dictatus papae, J. P. Whitney writes in "Gregory VII", The English Historical Review, Vol. 34, No. 134 (April 1919), pp. 129-151 at pp. 131-132:
This tendency of historians to accept the Register as authentic and, therefore, of first-rate importance has been justified more lately.  Peitz in his Das Originalregister Gregors VII. (Vienna, 1911) asserted as a result of fresh study of the Vatican MS. that it was nothing less than the original Register of Gregory's pontificate, an opinion which an earlier Jesuit scholar, Lapôtre, had suggested but not supported.  His argument is now generally accepted, and although the new edition, which he has promised us, has been delayed by the war, the letters, and as a consequence, the Dictatus (Reg. ii. 55a) and the Commentarius (Reg. i. 1), may now be used without any reserve.  The Register must be taken as a precious survival of a papal register, and thus we have a clear and strong foundation upon which to construct a history of the pontificate, and still more, for a trustworthy view of Gregory himself.
-- Cat Whisperer 16:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dictatus papae 

message: Should a section on the Infallibility of the Church be added? --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Infallibility of the Church
Talk:Politics of Guam

message: Where are the sources for any of this seemingly speculative information?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.67.53.20 (talk) 05:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources?

message: Hmm. It seems Bill Clinton is still leader of Guam ;-) Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 05:09 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Could the autor or autors of the Background section cite the sources/provide references. I'm currently researching Guam's statehood or commonwealth aspirations. Thank You. --Aníbal Freytes 01:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: early comments

message: Robert Torres is now Chief Justice, the page needs updating.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.238.228 (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: updates needed

message: This page cites no sources and is writen in a very POV manner.  If there is a large movement in Guam requesting independance shouldn't someone have written an article about it? A UN report perhaps? A petition to congress? Anything? This Article has been taged as lacking sources since 2007 and no sources have emerged. --Drewder (talk) 06:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to Wikipedia! One core piece of advice I always give to newcomers is to be bold.  If you think the article should be deleted, Wikipedia has deletion processes you can use yourself to nominate the article for deletion.  —Darkwind (talk) 06:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this page be removed?
Talk:Abelian variety

message: The third paragraph of the introduction says: "This induces a map from the fraction field to any such finite field." There is no such map (there are no homomorphisms between fields of different characteristic). Instead, one constructs a so-called Néron model for the abelian variety over the Dedekind domain (meaning that the generic point of the model is the original abelian variety over the number field). This model, being an abelian scheme over the Dedekind domain, can be reduced to an abelian variety over any residue field of the Dedekind domain.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.123.117.211 (talk) 07:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Map from fraction field to residue field

message: I have expanded and re-organized this article. It is still far from perfect so feel free to improve on it. It is my first (serious) contbutto wikipedia so comments and critique are most welcome. --Lenthe 13:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fantastic work.  I'll try to find time later on to do my grammar-nazi thing.  - Gauge 21:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: expansion

message: I'm sort of a novice, but in the section on the algebraic defintion, isn't it true that all abelian varieties are projective (ie. over any field, not just complex) CraigDesjardins 14:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is correct, and is also what was intended in the article. I have changed the wording slightly, hoping to avoid confusion. --Lenthe 10:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: This page should discuss the fact that there are no abelian schemes over \mathbb{Z} (Fontaine, Il n’y a pas de vari´et´e ab´elienne sur Z, Invent. Math. 81 (1985),
no. 3, 515–538.) and use this as motivation for semi-stable reduction.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Username6330 (talk • contribs) 08:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abelian Schemes
Talk:Biphobia

message: This article currently needs many more citations. Much of the text appears as assertions, with no citations. Pete unseth (talk) 00:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, then the text should be revised, right? Which sections do you see as making assertions without citations? --Historyday01 (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs many more citations -- too much original research and writing point of view 

message: The redirect Monosexism 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.  MikutoH (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Monosexism]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The redirect Monosexist 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.  MikutoH (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Monosexist]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Irish censorship law

message: The list of regulations here is taken from an Irish government web page, under fair use terms. The Anome 11:28 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I discovered this stub/list after I had contributed similar but more elaborated material to the more developed article Censorship in the Republic of Ireland.  Consequently, I intend to redirect to that latter article. Fibula 15:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Talk:Weed control

message: Strictly speaking, and ludicrous though it may seem, it is illegal in the UK (and possibly throughout the EU?) to advise anyone to use, or to use yourself, any home-made pesticide (this includes weedkillers), however innocuous and everyday the ingredients might be (eg putting salt on slugs). It's also illegal to use any commercial pesticide/weedkiller product for a purpose for which it is not specifically licensed, or at a dosage not recommended on the pack or accompanying literature. See The Food and Environment Protection Act (1985) (FEPA), the Control of Pesticides Regulations (1986) (COPR) and the Plant Protection Products Regulations (1995) (see pdf file entitled PESTICIDES - Legislation) SiGarb | Talk 22:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homemade weedkiller advice 

message: Weed had a subsection called Weed control that was duplicating the role of Weed control.
Cheers. Wassupwestcoast 01:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Weed should have a section on weed control. It's known as summary style. Richard001 (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merged in section from [[Weed]]

message: The term "noxious weed" is used in the New World, but not the UK or Europe, but a similar concept exists there.  WP is a catalouge of concepts not of terms (for that see wiktionary).  Therefore I propose a merger.--Kevlar (talk • contribs) 16:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I created the redirects harmful weed and injurious weed. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

text: – Wbm1058 (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose merge of "legislation" section with "noxious weed" 

message: Is there a specific reason why the methods haven't been grouped into mechanical/physical, cultural, biological and chemical control? If there are no objections, I plan on restructuring the section. Elspamo4 (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Methods grouping 

message: Hi you butt  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.234.176 (talk) 12:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buttplugs 

message: — Assignment last updated by IrishGordy (talk) 02:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Plant Ecology Winter 2023
Talk:Vice admiral

message: If this is to be a separate article (I go back and forth myself), it should at least pick up the vice admiral info in admiral. Stan 14:26 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
on here Ranks_and_insignia_of_NATO_Navies_Officers it says the US vice admiral is an OF-8 but here it says OF-9? Which one is it? Petsco 11:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Able Seaman (rank) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 23:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: This topic is being discussed on Talk:Admiral (Canada),Talk:Rear admiral,Talk:Commodore (Canada)
I was wondering why we don't have the command pennants shown on these articles?
Kingdom of Baustralia (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 23:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding flags to flag officer ranks 
Talk:Tandy 1000

message: Its my understanding that the DMA controller chip that's integral to the OEM memory expansion card in the 1000 machines doesn't actually provide any DMA function in these machines. The DMA chip only exists to provide refresh signals to the DRAM chips onboard the card - the DMA features being unimplemented. If this can be verified, it warrants editing the article. Drlegendre (talk) 04:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  DMA Controller unused?
Talk:Super Bowl

message: Can a list be made for every super bowl played in a list template? A thought to make it easier to navigate. Cwater1 (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This already exists. There is a link in multiple places on this page that takes you to the List of Super Bowl Champions page. Derknasnort (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. Sorry, didn't notice. Thank you! Cwater1 (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add list 

message: The redirect Super Bowl 63 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.  Hey man im josh (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Super Bowl 63]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The redirect Super Bowl LXIII 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.  Hey man im josh (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Super Bowl LXIII]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The redirect 2029 Super Bowl 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.  Hey man im josh (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:2029 Super Bowl]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The redirect Super Bowl 64 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.  Hey man im josh (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Super Bowl 64]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The redirect Super Bowl LXIV 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.  Hey man im josh (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Super Bowl LXIV]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The redirect 2030 Super Bowl 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.  Hey man im josh (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:2030 Super Bowl]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Can't Stop (board game)

message: I think that with just a bit more in the intro paragraph, this article will be ready for the wikify tag to be removed AbsolutDan 22:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikify tag

message: At least in the Palitoy version I have, this is one of the very few games where the pictures on the box are of a legal position!
That's a nice homemade board... Lovingboth 10:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quick comments

message: There are now links to two other articles by the same name except for different areas.  Is there any reason why this article should have priority on this name?  Would anyone object to me moving this page then redirecting this article to a disambiguation page? Val42 17:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation

message: This article does not require a disambiguating hatnote, per the guideline Wikipedia:Hatnotes#Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous, and I don't see a reason why this article should be an exception. Nothing ambiguous redirects here, and there is no other article title with which this one could be confused. Unless someone can offer a reason for keeping the hatnote, I think it should be removed. --ShelfSkewed Talk 11:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hatnote
Talk:History of Taiwan

message: I will be changing the dating system on this article away from the biased, Christian based AD/BC to the common era system.  This will bring the article into alignment with secular usage such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_India.  If you object, please state why you are ok with the biased system here. Eupnevma (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Before you go changing AC BC please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style, specifically MOS:VAR. Also, instead of hundreds of discussions regarding the changes on hundreds of different talk pages, get a conversation going here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Thanks! Masterhatch (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

text: Since it seems @Eupnevma went ahead and did this against MOS consensus, I intend to restore the page to BC/AD. Riposte97 (talk) 02:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change dating system to Common Era 

message: it looks like you remove content which was already tagged as uncited. Generally we only remove text when we don't believe that it is citable, is that the case here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed uncited content  

message: this page needs to have edit protection, given the topic can be potentially controversial. Also another talk page can be setup for the discussion regarding the history of the island. 184.145.61.182 (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lock the page 

message: 184.145.61.182 please stop disruptive changes to section names. The article is already about Taiwan, adding Taiwan to section names does not add anything and none of the other polities are described as "Qing Taiwan" or "Zheng Taiwan" or "Dutch Taiwan". That would be redundant in an article about Taiwan. Qiushufang (talk) 04:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Please stop disruptive changes to section names
Talk:Khoi (disambiguation)

message: I'm pretty sure that the most common meaning of "Khoi" is indeed the Khoikhoi. See what links here...almost all of these pages are referring to the African tribe. Therefore, I propose to move this page to Khoi (disambiguation) and redirect this page to Khoikhoi. If there are no objections, I'll go ahead and make the necessasry changes... —Khoikhoi 00:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. —Khoikhoi 07:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment
Talk:Glossary of British terms not widely used in the United States

message: In the USA, a place where you see movies is a theater, while in the UK they call it Cinema.
Meanwhile, a theater in the UK is a place where they show operas (an "opera house" in the USA). 109.116.98.112 (talk) 12:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cinema 

message: I believe this refers to tea/coffee around 11am in the workplace (UK), but I'm not completely sure. COL INFANTRY (talk) 18:00, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you're right it does. Cambridge says it's "UK informal". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elevenses 

message: This seems to be a Briticism meaning lots of people...you see it in British mysteries, usually something like "they went in there mob-handed." COL INFANTRY (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mob-Handed 

message: Collins says "in British English"? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, so I saw, but I couldn't find any other dictionary that thought so and, per the link in my edit summary, it does seem to have some currency in the US. I'll not object if you feel strongly about putting it back though, with the ref. (I've an eye on the article, having cleared out some of the more dubious unreffed entries but baulked at tackling the largely unreffed remainder.) Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It says this is a list of British words not widely used in the United States... Does "some currency" = "widely used"? Hard for me to judge. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Merriam Webster doesn't list the term, although neither do most British dictionaries I've checked. I guess it's possible the use in a an American publication was by an expat Brit. With the Collins ref added for support, it's way ahead of most of the content of most of this article so I think it's fair enought to add it back. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dimbo
Talk:Hank Williams

message: Terribly minor detail that I am not sure needs addressing, but I wanted to record it for posterity.  In the "Personal Details" section, Williams is listed as living with Ray Price in Nashville at the corner of Westwood Dr and Natchez Trace.  This detail is cited and is consistent in the source document.  However, Westwood Drive and Natchez Trace do not intersect in Nashville - Westwood Avenue and Natchez Trace do. DAWGinRoswell 12:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it possible that the name or configuration has changed in the intervening 71 years since then? The Texas State Historical Association website cited says "Westwood Drive". Carlstak (talk) 03:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's Westwood Avenue on both present-day and 1952 maps. The exact address is 2718 Westwood. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. Carlstak (talk) 02:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Westwood
Talk:M. Butterfly

message: The page lists Lone and Irons as the stars of the LA Theater Works audio production.
I own this production and I know the leads are played by Lithgow and Wong. I've just looked it up again: http://www.latw.org/Audio/detail.aspx?title=M.%20Butterfly
So, I'm changing the page to reflect this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.49.80.211 (talk) 02:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Audio Version "Miscast"

message: The text is informative and comprehensive - well done to all contributors - but it has the character of an essay or book chapter, not an encyclopaedia entry. Could anyone fix this without impairing the article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.168.61 (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone 

message: was the kimono part of classic Chinese opera or wear? --2607:FEA8:FF01:4E54:D504:381C:8C1E:478C (talk) 13:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  kimono?
Talk:2006 FIFA World Cup

message: Change the German motto in the info box from "Eine Zeit, um Freunde zu finden" to "Die Welt zu Gast bei Freunden", which is the correct motto in German. The current one is a translation of the English version of the motto, which is not exactly the same as it is in German. HLTVDE (talk) 07:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Mvqr (talk) 12:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2022 

message: per new style
German national football team = Germany national football team 2603:8000:D300:3650:88E1:C9B7:7135:AA58 (talk) 02:16, 5 October 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. M.Bitton (talk) 20:01, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2023
Talk:David Cronenberg

message: I'm not going to attempt to edit and possibly screw up formatting, but in 2017, Cronenberg played Reverend Verrenger in the Netflix series "Alias Grace" 2601:246:5B7F:FD10:69EC:F79D:CA50:480A (talk) 00:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another acting role