lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Padmapriya Janakiraman

message: Dear Editors! There has been a discussion on India Portal related to mentioning of caste of subjects. The point is that mentioning caste of people, who have nothing to do with their caste, is found to be unnecessary by few editors. Hence the caste of the subject person needs to be deleted from the biography. I am not deleting the caste as of now but am only posting this here so that the regular editors of this article are well aware of it beforehand and no edit-wars take place. For details of discussion held on the portal please refer Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Mentioning_caste_of_Individuals. Your views if any are welcome there or even here.  And.... as the reasons of exclusion of caste pointed out were "irrelavant to notability of subject person", "privacy of the subject person", "inclusion of caste is like branding individuals", etc. other information included in the article which also fall under these cases will also be removed after discussions. Examples of it included religion, non-notable spouse's and children's and parents' information, previous occupation, lived in places, non-notability related educational qualification, etc.  Your views on this are also welcome here or at the India portal. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 11:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not here, please. There is a community discussion taking place at WT:INB and I would advise people to read the entire discussion before forming an opinion because the above summary is incorrect. Nothing more need be said here. - Sitush (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Mentioning Caste
Talk:Fort McClellan

message: Much of this text was adapted from http://www.mcclellan.army.mil/Info.asp, a website owned and operated by the US Army. As such, it is not subject to copyright. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:PD#Governmental_works for more information. ClarkBHM 07:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Public Domain

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: I suspect someone or some agency of editing out or deleting certain information from this article pertaining to the exposure of service members who served at the base to toxic chemicals and ionizing radiation. Monsanto? Solutia? US ARMY?
2602:63:C2A2:AF00:687C:1006:1F8B:AEC9 (talk) 23:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the Pentagon. The lawyer working on my VA case has a copy of a letter sent to the US Representatives office who had introduced the Fort McClellan registry act. This letter clearly states that the Pentagon does not want that registry because in, a summary of their words, it says that they couldn't afford it with the number of claims that would come in. The current camp was June thing is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the military and chemical exposures of troops 71.29.23.172 (talk) 10:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I was at McClellan in '84, ended up medically discharged.  The funny thing is, i can't seem to locate any records that show i was OSUT there... 174.214.49.80 (talk) 08:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspicious  

message: I added a citation needed regarding the notorious difficulty of the officer training.  This very well could be notoriously difficult training, but after a quick look for a reference, I could not find one.  I will look further,and if I find one, I will add it. Anyone who can cite this fact, please do so.Horst59 (talk) 04:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Guard Training 

message: The lede includes this statement, not referenced in the main article: 
Storage, use and disposal of chemical weapons and waste contaminated soil and water supply and exposed the population.
This needs elaboration, and preferably a cite. Valetude (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pollution 
Talk:Passion Sunday

message: As a Priest in this part of the Anglican Communion - Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia (and in my humble opinion more generally) - "Passion Sunday" still applies to the fifth Sunday in Lent, and Passiontide begins then, albeit with less intensity than on Palm Sunday.  The momentuum of Lent changes, and this is reflected in the liturgy, colour, lectionary, etc of the Church.
: Yes, I agree with you. I am Anglican too, I know the liturgical books. In the Anglican and Orthodox vocabulary, we use this phrase for the 5th Sunday of the Lent. - 217.136.241.189 (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

message: Are there any sources which demonstrate that Passiontide was officially abolished, or is it simply implied by the reversion to “Fifth Sunday of Lent”? The continued veiling of statues, and the mandatory use of the Preface of the Passion of the Lord after the Fifth Sunday of Lent demonstrate a change of character in the final two weeks of Lent which suggests Passiontide is still observed. Moreover, even though Passiontide is a more ancient observation than Lent, the oldest extant books of the Roman Rite delineate “Fifth Sunday of Lent.” The name was changed to Passion Sunday in the ninth century. So it is Passiontide which lent its name to Passion Sunday, not Passion Sunday which lent its name to Passiontide.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.153.221.138 (talk) 14:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: The abolition of Passiontide
Talk:On the Atchison, Topeka and the Santa Fe

message: Lyrics have "on the Atchison, Topeka and the Santa Fe," which fits the syncopation, even though it's not the formal name of the railroad. Jokestress 07:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the Santa Fe 

message: I got this from the web just: "All the way from Philadelphiay".
I have also heard the Four Freshmen version, and there I heard "All the way from Mahanoy City, PA" ("PA" is rendered as its letters: P A)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  all the way from where?
Talk:Everybody's Rockin'

message: I don't recall where I read that "Everybody's Rockin'" was recorded out of equal parts spite and self-indulgence because Young was resentful of his current recording contract and wanted to give the label something he wouldn't be ashamed of yet they would find almost impossible to market.  Anyone got a citation?
This sort of album would make an entertaining list of its own, including the albums Prince and the Rolling Stones recorded for similar reasons.
I don't think that was entirely Young's thinking - though I guess that's why Geffen sued him.  In the Mojo interview which I reference it says:
"Q. Then came Everybody's Rockin', a curious and underwhelming collection of '50s rock pastiches and easily your most mystifying record to date. You lost a lot of your audience with that record, I reckon... 
A. Well that was as good as Tonight's The Night as far as I'm concerned. The character was strong, the story was great but unfortunately, the story never got to appear on the album. Before I got a chance to finish it - I got stopped from recording. Geffen cancelled a couple of sessions where I was going to do two songs - Get Gone and Don't Take Your Love Away From Me - that would've given a lot more depth to The Shocking Pinks. But if you didn't see the shows you wouldn't be able to get into it fully. Of course, it wasn't anywhere near as intense as Tonight's The Night. There was very little depth to the material obviously. They were all 'surface' songs. But see, there was a time when music was like that, when all pop stars were like that. (Ardently) And it was good music, really good music. See, when I made albums like Everybody's Rockin' and everyone takes the shit out of 'em...l knew they could do that. What am l? Stupid? Did people really think I put that out thinking it was the greatest fuckin' thing I'd ever recorded? Obviously I'm aware it's not. Plus it was a way of further destroying what I'd already set up. Without doing that, I wouldn't be able to do what I'm doing now. If I build something up, I have to systematically tear it right down before people decide, *Oh that's how we can define him*." 
-- Beardo 06:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure where it fits into the importance of all things considered ... but shouldn't the article mention that this album spawned a video for "Wonderin'" ? It did get a lot of MTV airplay at the time. Harvey J Satan (talk) 17:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

message: The article says August 1, 1983 whilst the NYA website shows 27/07/1983. Any way to get confirmation ? -- Beardo (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release date
Talk:Gulf of Ob

message: * I couldn't figure out through the Wiki rules and such whether adding a direct link to a PDF file was against the rules.  If it *is* against the rules, please remove the link. Em3rald 07:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Old talk

message: The map doesn't say where the  is. Jidanni 14:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Map not marked
Talk:Victor Premasagar

message: This article still needs more cleaning up. It needs better wikifying, and some sections are difficult to follow. 
Is the long list of external links valuable? Could it be trimmed to a few high-value links, or grouped to help a reader decide which ones to follow? --Scott Davis Talk 07:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: cleanup required

message: Wikipedia is *not* an instrument of publicity (and propaganda?). I happen to be from the place where this gentleman is from, and I haven't heard of him. I strongly urge the editors to purge this meaningless article. If this sort of a thing goes on, you'll have every other guy putting up his 'profile' on Wikipedia. This is *not* orkut! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.254.232.182 (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is worty of inclussion but it needs a complete rewrite. -- SECisek (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The older version of the article violated numerous wikipedia policies - it read like an advertisment, used purple text, had CSI on the see line instead of denomination, etc.  The re-worked version is an improvement on the version you keep restoring. What do you want in the article? Perhaps we can work out a NPOV here. -- SECisek 18:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this article really useful?

message: None hears of the 'instruments' behind the Church establishments.  St.George's Grammar School, Wesley College and other institutions in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad  were established by the Church of South India and had existed since the last two centuries.  Rakesh Sharma was a product of St.George's Grammar School.  Dr. Victor Premasagar was Bishop-in-Medak, of the Church of South India Asia's largest bishopric.  The Queen of England, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II during her visit to Secunderabad in the eighties had celebrated her birthday in Secunderabad in Bolarum Church - the service was officiated by Dr. Premasagar.
One wonders why some unsigned person chose to remark on Priest's.  Is is that priest's who render selfless service should not be focussed or brought to the limelight ?. Preethi Evangeline 16:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is worty of inclussion but it needs a complete rewrite. -- SECisek (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Usefulness of this article

message: When you revert, are you not aware that you are omitting Honorary Titles and Academic Offices - that's for succession boxes.
As the the textual matter, you seem to be totally unaware that you are again omitting major textual matter.Pradeep 18:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The older version of the article violated numerous wikipedia policies - it read like an advertisment, used purple text, had CSI on the see line instead of denomination, etc.  The re-worked version is an improvement on the version you keep restoring. What do you want in the article? Perhaps we can work out a NPOV here. -- SECisek 18:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverts
Talk:Alberto Nepomuceno

message: ==Untitled==
I removed two paragraphs of material that were taken from http://editionsilvertrust.com/nepomuceno-string-quartet-3.htm presumably without permission. If they were used with permission, or if the submitter is the copyright holder, he may make a note to that effect and restore the material.
-Bungopolis 07:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright violation

message: I removed two paragraphs of material that were taken from http://editionsilvertrust.com/nepomuceno-string-quartet-3.htm presumably without permission. If they were used with permission, or if the submitter is the copyright holder, he may make a note to that effect and restore the material.
-Bungopolis 07:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Link (simplicial complex)

message: I'm having trouble understanding the definition.  What is the "corner" of a 2-cell?  I'm familiar with cell complexes, so I believe what the author of the stub intended was a more specific kind of complex, such as a simplicial complex.  In fact, I believe the definition of link intended here is that of a simplicial link.  It's not a notion that's particular to graph theory by any means, so the more general notion of simplicial link should be explained and the article moved to something like link (simplicial complex).  --C S (Talk) 08:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think you're right. I understand them better now, than when I started this article. Perhaps the best complexes to talk about are polygonal complexes (but are they simplicial complexes anyway)? I'm going to attempt an overhaul of this article. msgj (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The title have been changed to:  Link (simplicial complex). --Erel Segal (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I think this article should be given a more specific title.  MathWorld defines a link (in this context) as merely the edge of a graph.  Guillemin uses the term for graph edges that have been removed to form a tree.  Neither of these corresponds, as far as I can tell, to the subject of this article. SpinningSpark 11:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The title have been changed to:  Link (simplicial complex). --Erel Segal (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: Karim Adiprasito and Jose Alejandro (in article The Lower Bound Theorem for polytopes that approximate C1-convex bodies) wrote:
The link of a vertex is sometimes called a vertex figure.
There is article Vertex figure on WikipadiA. So, why we have two difeerent articles about the same thing? Jumpow (talk) 14:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link of vertex = vertex figure?
Talk:Poland at 1938 FIFA World Cup

message: I propose a merge to 1938 FIFA World Cup (squads). Alas it doesn't exist yet (but it should, see for instance 1998 FIFA World Cup (squads)). Punkmorten 08:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once it's done, why not. Some historical elements would probably be better of at History of football in Poland.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Glossary of the French Revolution

message: --CopyToWiktionaryBot 23:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007-02-6 Automated pywikipediabot message 

message: Included today because that term did originate during this revolution (although the idea for this machine came earlier).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.47 (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The guillotine
Talk:Algebraic link

message: The article originally contained a misleading excerpt from MathWorld which stated that algebraic links were fibered and arose from algebraic geometry.  Not all algebraic links are fibered (for example, even among rational knots one can find non-fibered examples), and the "algebraic" terminology isn't because of algebraic geometry.  Thus, I've modified the stub and removed the reference to MathWorld.  --C S (Talk) 08:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fiber

message: This term is used like the article defines in the mathematical literature, but is not the most common modern meaning: instead, "algebraic link" usually means the link of an algebraic singularity. I will add the other definition when I have a chance. --Dylan Thurston (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not the most common definition
Talk:Nunduinë

message: I don't know anything about  J. R. R. Tolkien's fictional universe, and therefore this article isn't really clear about what "Quenya" is related to "Nunduinë". In the sentence Its name is Quenya... what is the "Its" ? Is this "Nunduinë" ? Has this river two names ? Lvr 08:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quenya is a language. The name Nunduinë is of Quenya origin. In English Nunduinë would be translated as 'West River'. I changed the article a bit to try to clarify this briefly. --CBDunkerson 10:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is better this way ! Lvr 12:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quenya
Talk:List of Dexter's Laboratory episodes

message: Why show the episodes in production order; they aired in a different order and I think we should do it that way. Otherwise, why show the production code? 107.119.69.34 (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season 1 Episode Order 

message: Series overview and lists below don't match Gambareoniisan (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: how so? The episode numbers match. Do the segments not match? EvergreenFir (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean the count like season three overview says 26 when the list mention 13 only Gambareoniisan (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are segments, not episodes EvergreenFir (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Series overview
Talk:Strangling

message: I was always taught at journalism college, in law lectures, that strangling was a very final act and that death was the only conclusion. Any compression of the neck area which was not fatal was always an attempt at strangulation, not actual strangulation; and therefore where someone says "strangle(d)/(ing) to death" it's essentially tautologous.
If the compression was for a reason other than violent life extinction, such as an aid to sexual gratification, then the expression I always deployed was asphyxiation; this is also used in coroner's courts where such acts have gone wrong and a person has died as a consequence. Mileage clearly varies, and I've not made any changes to the article as I think further debate might be needed, if deemed important enough! Maybe it varies depending on the national brand of English used. Anyway, thought I'd drop in and make the point; it stems from a dual change I made to the Moors Murders page which has now been reversed. I am not inclined to get into a tit-for-tat reversal process on that article, but I would appreciate some opinions. Regards! Bentley Banana 08:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the Oxford Dictionary of English, strangle is defined as "squeeze or constrict the neck of (a person or animal), especially so as to cause death", with strangulation being "the action or state of strangling or being strangled". So according to this definition, strangling does not necessarily imply death. The definition may vary in different disciplines or areas of knowledge, such as in US law, BDSM or combat sports. In an attempt to reduce bias by any such discipline, a broad definition was used (similar to the one given by the Oxford Dictionary of English). --Marcus 11:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "...to death?"

message: Described in this article :
:The murder of sacrificial victims by "incaprettamento" — tying their neck to their legs bent behind their back, so that they effectively strangled themselves — seems to have been a tradition across much of Neolithic Europe, with a new study identifying more than a dozen such murders over more than 2,000 years. Today, the gruesome incaprettamento murder method is associated with the Italian Mafia, who have sometimes used it as a form of warning or reprimand. Crubézy said it wasn't known why incaprettamento was used for Stone Age human sacrifices, but it might have been because a person bound in this way could be seen as strangling themselves, rather than being killed by someone else.
The word incaprettamento is nowhere on enwiki, and in a half-dozen articles on itwiki about people who died this way, probably by the Mafia. -- GreenC 17:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a new paragraph. -- GreenC 17:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  incaprettamento
Talk:BBC Kids (Canadian TV channel)

message: I have satellite and one of the channels I get is BBC Kids. They've systematically skipped over every single Dalek story in the series.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.77.12.95 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: It's a valid point

message: BBC Kids is not an american channel, do not refer in the article that it is an american channel, it is Canadian only. If there ahppenes to be an american channel with the same name then create an article for the american channel, but this is a Canadian channel only. MusiMax 20:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But I want to contact to the BBC on their website to make an American channel with the same name, and it will be devoted for British kids' programming. [User: Nate Speed] — Preceding undated comment added 19:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: American channel?

message: It never went away at all. The branding and the programming _still_ exists. I'm watching it right now.
The fact that the BBC Kids www.bbckids.ca website doesn't offer a link the BBC K section shows you how badly Canwest is screwing up AA channels. They only list the programming and schedules until BBC Kids signs off for the day. What drugs is everyone smoking here? Macshill (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the hell??!! BBC K (((IS))) still around 

message: Since Treehouse TV and YTV now have dates on their shows can someone add the dates for the shows?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:BD38:8400:70D9:1A76:5919:46AA (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates for shows 

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 discussion. 
The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Vpab15 (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: BBC Kids →  – Almost the entire edit history of this article is about the Canadian channel. The current article is unbalanced because editors shoved in the Australian channel into the Canadian article, instead of moving the Canadian channel, and creating an overview article for the "BBC Kids" brand, leading to a new Australian channel article, ending up with three articles. I propose the Canadian article be restored with its edit history at the new location, clearing way for a new article on the brand at this location. The short Australian section can remain as is, while a new summary of the Canadian section is built for the new article at this "BBC Kids" location, and a rollback to the old Canada only article appear at the new "(Canada)" location -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 11:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 3 April 2021