lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:1916

message: Excuse me is this meant to be a chronological series of events of the year 1916 or a mothpiece for Armenian and Greek propaganda against the Turks? Can these biased and disputed statements please be sourced from objective and non-racial sources please BEFORE submitting here. I am sick and tired of racial minorities using Wkipedia as their mouthpiece. Go hijack your own website. 82.145.231.222 13:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Armenian Genocide]] 

message: I first came ot this article to find out what 1916 in the song Zombie referenced. Turns out it's the Easter Rising. Perhaps we could mention is somehow? - SkarmoryThePG 15:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Zombie

message: [2006 - See: Talk:1950#Format.  -Wikid77 13:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format 

message: Who are the article about the war of dots from 1916? It's about the writing for the blind by New York Point, American Braille and British Braille
Look there: http://www.afb.org/jvib/jvib000302.asp
Sorry about the language, i'm a german  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.72.55.138 (talk) 08:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: War of dots

message: Monet started to paint his water lilly series in 1905. The painting reproduced was painted in 1920-1926.  Nothing has anything to do with 1916.Afil (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Water Lilies (Monet series)|Water Lilies]] 

message: IP address 124.106.250.6 keeps changing the images in the births section and I hadn't went to their talk page yet. I was wondering, should this be protected for a couple of days before this happens again? 206.45.9.182 (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 
Talk:1912

message: [See: Talk:1950#Format.  -Wikid77 13:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format 
Talk:Solsonès

message: There is a confusion: the county is Urgell (yet exist as a nobiliary title), Solsonès is a comarca (a type of Shire)
: It's tricky, because the English-language equivalent to "comarca" is "county", even in countries like the US that never had counts. The US doesn't have "shires" (and a UK shire is simply a type of county). Since the article is written in US English, "county" is appropriate. But I will modify Comarques of Catalonia to clarify this issue. And maybe I need to rethink the boilerplate I've been using for the comarques, because (as an American) I didn't consider the possible implication by using the word "county" that they each woudl have had a count.-- Jmabel 21:41, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
Talk:1921

message: The 1920 articles are missing- By Country: Germany Ksenon 05:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Germany]] 

message: [See: Talk:1950#Format.  -Wikid77 17:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format 
Talk:1925

message: [See: Talk:1950#Format.  -Wikid77 16:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format 

message: It appears that perhaps Masking Tape was invented in 1925, while Scotch Tape was invented in 1930.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.167.241.154 (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Scotch Tape]]
Talk:1927

message: [See: Talk:1950#Format.  -Wikid77 16:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format 

message: The statement that "The Great Mississippi Flood ... [was] the greatest national disaster in US history" needs qualification or revision.  This assertion isn't made in the article, and other disasters have caused more deaths and monetary damage.  Especially if we're calling it a "national" as opposed to "natural" disaster. Jbarrett (talk) 07:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Great Mississippi Flood of 1927]] 

message: I've changed it, to match the other Papal births, listed at the other YEAR articles. GoodDay (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Pope Benedict XVI]]'s birth 

message: The entry for April 12th says: "The Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927 renames the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The change acknowledges that the Irish Free State is no longer part of the Kingdom."
	
The entry for May 13th says: "George V proclaims the change of his title from King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to King of Great Britain and Ireland."
As a result, the country is a united kingdom consisting of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The monarch however is king of Great Britain and (apparantly) all of Ireland, merely dropping the term 'united kingdom'. Wouldn't  it be expected that the countries name and the royal style would follow each other more closer than this?
193.176.235.94 (talk) 11:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of [[Great Britain]] 

message: Hiya, I have removed the flu epidemic line as it was 1918-1919 NOT 1927 http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/timeline/worldwars_timeline_noflash.shtml Veryscarymary (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that there was an influenza epidemic in Britain in 1927; see, for example, these contemporary news reports, the third of which confirms the figure of a thousand deaths per week.  Brunton (talk) 08:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  No flu epidemic in 1927 
Talk:1928

message: List page says she died June 4, main page says June 14 (correct). Don't know how to amend, can some Wikipedian do this? 90.152.3.218 (talk) 12:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Emmeline Pankhurst]] 

message: [See: Talk:1950#Format.  -Wikid77 16:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format 

message: The German  site for this year has some nice pictures, whereas this English version only has one picture.  Can't we add some good pictures?211.225.34.49 (talk) 08:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 
Talk:LSA

message: It should direct to the chemical.  -- 65.97.14.167
:No it shouldn't.  Paul Beardsell 22:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it should. 65.97.14.167 11:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, fix it, then.  It's a wiki.  Edit boldly!  Paul Beardsell 19:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this by default directing here? 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :LSA (Disambiguation) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 24#LSA (Disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Steel1943 (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "LSA (Disambiguation)" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Walter Staunton Mack Jr.

message: Page doubtless created from Wikipedia:List of encyclopedia topics/Biographies M. The automated nature of that list involves quite frequent mishandling of titles (such as Jr., in this case). Needs watching.
Charles Matthews 11:53, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Jr must be taken off title of article. I do not know how.  
Walter S Mack Jr, his son, married Consuelo Mack .  
See reference at end of this article.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consuelo_Mack?wprov=sfti1 Ccirulli (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title wrong
Talk:1942

message: [ See Talk:1950#Format.  -Wikid77 13:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format 

message: I noticed that the occurence of Operation Anthropoid, the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich, is repeated in both May and June, under events. Please verify and clarify.
October 28 is noted as the date for the completion of the Alaska Highway, but the first paragraph of the main article, Alaska Highway states that the road was completed in 1943.  Does anybody know? Anewcharliega (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancies in date 

message: At time of reading this article seems incredibly Amerocentric: no mention of the end of the German Operation Typhoon to capture Moscow on Jan 7 but mention of arrival of American Air command in the UK; entry of a ship sinking which killed 200 people is valid in 2013, but at the height of WW2 including similar deathtolls would result in an extremely bloated page. --125.230.100.90 (talk) 05:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Americentric]] 

message: There is currently a curious entry for February 22, 1942, which states "President...Roosevelt orders General Douglas MacArthur out of the Philipines as American defense of the nation collapses."
Perhaps this was date the President decided MacArthur must leave, although I can find no documentation of this; but it is well documented that MacArthur left on March 12 (Eastern Date). In addition, the defense of the Phillipines was not in a state of collapse in late February; US forces in the Philipines held out until May 10th.
Suggest the item be removed and will do so in a few days if no one objects.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.141.26 (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong date for MacArthur's departure from the [[Philippines]] 

message: What happened to this critical battle?  Hitler almost scrapped his surface ships because of it!  71.175.200.165 (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of the [[Barents Sea]] 12/31/1942 
Talk:Ocythoe tuberculata

message: I've just added 14 images from Auckland Museum to the Ocythoe tuberculata category on Commons; someone might want to incorporate them into this page. — Hugh (talk) 03:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images added to Commons
Talk:Glass octopus

message: Hello, my team and I are doing research on the Glass Octopus for a class project at Texas A & M Corpus Christi University. As a group, we have decided we would like to break up the large description paragraphs into different sub-headings. Such as "Mating Process" and "Anatomy" to break it down and make information more clear about what that specific sub-heading will be about. It'll help the audience locate information easier and have structure. Colbycoker (talk) 19:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Potential Revisions

message: — Assignment last updated by Bendoncaramel (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: ENGL-122

message: — Assignment last updated by HeatherOlins (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Deep-Sea Biology
Talk:1895

message: Dundela FC, it was claimed, were formed in Belfast, Northern Ireland in 1895. Northern Ireland did not exist until 1921, so corrected to Belfast, Ireland. RedsIndependent.com 13:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steghen F. Austin 
Talk:Operation Moses

message: I am not sure that charecterizing this as a military operation is quite correct. The pages I have read mention agents and El Al but not IDF. Operation Solomon appears to certainly have involved IDF. Does El Al actually fly C-130s though as it is claimed in the linked article? Or just IDF? Rmhermen 13:07, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
:This was a military operation led by the army.  The IDF took the seats out of ElAl jets and played a very large role. --יהושועEric 14:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Characterizing as military operation

message: I added all of the key players of the operation. It was a triumph of feet-on-the-ground realism for all parties involved. Feco 08:28, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanded list of participants 

message: The jews were evacuated not removed.  Typical objectifying racialist kant.  I bet white jews are evacuated all over wikipedia.  because they're black, "they're removed," as if cargo. -222.68.185.34 (talk) 15:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that evacuation was already used in the article - now it is used twice in close proximity in the text, bad style. And also note that removal was chosen as a more neutral term than evacuation which can be seen as carrying an implication of malfeasance by the Sudanese government. Rmhermen (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  evacuation not removal 
Talk:Infoganda

message: This article has problems. The wording is composed of too much unencyclopedic prose currently; I buy relevance, but we have some original research, weasel words, awkward sentences, lack of citations, etc, etc. It needs a good cleanup and citation. I doubt a rewrite will be necessary, but shortening for brevity would help, too. Also, link it out where relevant (seriously lacking backlinks). 65.112.197.16 01:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup
Talk:Finite group

message: Errr ... shouldn't this page have some content ...
Charles Matthews 14:46, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

message: There are textbooks and other references that present tables of how many distinct (non-isomorphic) groups exist for each order, for a reasonable range of integers such as n = 1, 2, 3, ... 30. Such a thing here would be a valuable example of concrete information, rather than abstrct wandering around (wondering around?) about the subject. Such a table should be provided here.
For example with n = 8, there is the cyclic abelian group that can be illustated as the one that consists of the eight eighth=roots of -1. Also, there is the quaternion group (with n = 8, I emphasize) that is a non-abelian group. A non-abelian group cannot possibly be isomorphic to an abelian group, hence for n = 8, there are at least two distinct groups in existence.
Upon further investigation, it is found that there are three abelian groups here, including two product groups plus two non-abelian groups, with order eight.  
98.81.17.64 (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be looking for the page list of small groups.  It doesn't construct the enumeration like you describe (Wikipedia is not a textbook), but it does enumerate exhaustively all groups up to and including order 16.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

text: I don't see any utility in listing the numbers of isomorphism classes of groups of small order, especially since the groups themselves have been listed elsewhere. Arcfrk (talk) 15:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A table of how many distinct groups for each order 

message: To echo the comments of Charles Matthews from 2004 and the follow-up in 2007, finite group theory is a well established subject. Focusing entirely on the number of finite groups of given order is misleading. Arcfrk (talk) 15:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another three years later 

message: This article is way too small, and doesn't talk at all about permutation groups, cyclic groups, etc. Instead it rants on about the the number of groups with n elements. The introduction is fine, but after that there is virtually no good information shown. Fraqtive42 (talk) 04:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Rewrite
Talk:Reactionary/Archive 1

message: I think it's a good idea to give real examples of reactionary parties. David.Monniaux 18:40, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

message: WHEELER, I'm afraid I don't agree with some of your exapnsions to this article.  Some of the additions are good, but virtually no one would call the founding fathers "reactionary" -- on the contrary, they were "revolutionaries" to whom the Tories were reactionary.  I think calling Socrates and Plato "reactionaries" is a bit imprecise, though I'll agree that Plato (and what Plato tells us of Socrates) defended a more conservative style of government than Athenian democracy.  Certainly I don't know any reactionaries who like the label, and it's usually used for extremists -- I don't think Socrates and Plato were political extremists in defending a mixed government.  Extreme in other ways perhaps, but not in their response to democracy. Jwrosenzweig 19:31, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wish, but would you be so kind as to carry over my own edits? David.Monniaux 20:57, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: Gratuitous allegations. (For the record, I've reads several of Plato's works, as well as some Cicero, the latter in Latin. Still, I'm not a "Classicist", but saying that I hate the Classics would be an unbelievable stretch.)David.Monniaux 06:31, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: John, we do -- that's the Wiki way. :-)  But it's difficult.  WHEELER, you're falling into your old habit of asserting things about me that are not true.  I have read the classics.  I love the classics.  I disagree with your interpretation of the classics.  You are expressing one point of view, and one that is severely in the minority here (and in modern scholarship, I rather suspect).  Being a "rightist" does not mean you know what you're talking about, any more that someone's being a "leftist" means they know what they're talking about.  The fact that you seem to think this makes all of us more and more convinced that you are unwilling to accept that you have biases (though I hope and believe that you can accept this, and learn from it).  Socrates was killed by a democracy gone wrong, but that has absolutely no bearing on our discussions here.  Please stay calm, if you can.  This is not a life-and-death matter. Jwrosenzweig 16:10, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Reactionary feelings in the antiquity

message: I have the quotes to back me up.  IF you want to revert then YOU USE QUOTES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!WHEELER 14:24, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Then please cite your quotes. David.Monniaux 14:55, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Correct use of quotations
Talk:Timeline of Sunderland

message: I propose to change the format of this article and use a straight narrative list instead of boxes, typical of that generally used in "Timeline of ..." arcticles; because:
* this format does not allow references
* this format does not allow a narrative insert between the items; eg insert 18th Century
* this format does not allow two items in the same year.
Any views? ArbieP (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: First draft below: (no refs added yet, but more wiki-links added and one or two minor edits)  ArbieP (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format change
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Evolutionary biology

message: I recently submitted a  draft article for review on the theory of bias in the introduction of variation (aka "arrival bias") as a cause of orientation or direction in evolution.  This is a fundamental theory with substantial empirical support and potentially broad applications in regard to molecular evolution, evo-devo and self-organization. 
I would appreciate anyone offering to review this or help identify reviewers. Thanks!  Dabs (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs review: Bias in the introduction of variation (arrival bias) 

message: ===FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject===
  Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  19:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: For anyone interested, the discussion is being continued here: Talk:Polyvagal theory#Consolidation of Criticism section to reflect reliable sources and remove original research. Oleasylvestris (talk) 07:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreviewed Featured articles year-end summary

message: Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  19:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: For anyone interested, the discussion is being continued here: Talk:Polyvagal theory#Consolidation of Criticism section to reflect reliable sources and remove original research. Oleasylvestris (talk) 07:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject

message: Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a  parameter to , which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to , and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.
However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass  a new  parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project-independent quality assessments
Talk:New-age music

message: I notice that, despite the apparent consensus (or lack thereof) documented in the two discussions above at #Possible move and #Requested re-move, that this article title has just been changed (back) to the unhyphenated form with the second word capitalised. Where is the discussion that established a new consensus for this move? I would like to read it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It was done with this edit-, and no mention in talk. I just reverted it. Volunteer1234 (talk) 02:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the page shouldn't have been moved without discussion and consensus, especially given the existing discussions above. However, the usual formation does seem to be with capitals and no hyphen. Presumably the term "New Age" is modelled on terms such as "Bronze Age" and "Iron Age", so just as we would refer to a Bronze Age sword or Iron Age tribes in Britain, never a "bronze-age sword" or "iron-age tribes", we similarly refer to "New Age music" and not "new-age music". Placing this article at "New-age music" seems to me like an attempt to force it into a WP:MOS guideline where it doesn't fit, rather than following WP:COMMONNAME and using the form that most writers in the real world use. --Deskford (talk) 10:38, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with .  Using the style "New-age music" is a Wikipedia-ism that bears no relation to the way in which the term is usually written in the real world - that is, without a hyphen.  We should not be using WP style guidelines in a way that distorts common usage.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm repeatedly having to check the usage. I'm OK with New age or New-age but new age is wrong. Someone posted above that Wikipedia's rule is to lowercase genres, but that's not that the rule. Most genres are lowercased but not all. Christian rock, for example, and Latin jazz use caps. In all my reading I doubt I've ever seen "New" lowercased. Maybe we can agree on that at least. I would change that usage in this article, but I have a hunch someone would change it back.Vmavanti (talk) 22:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the new consensus? 

message: Possible good source for early new age history.
https://www.sun-sentinel.com/1985/06/01/quiet-new-age-music-finds-respectability/ Anonymous-232 (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:   QUIET NEW AGE MUSIC FINDS RESPECTABILITY  

message: Noting that there isn't much (or anything?) here about the connection bw new age and occultism. By this I mean Wicca, spiritual channeling, etc., of which there are many examples in the genre. Also, I refer to the anti-new age Christian movement. There are dozens of books, records, etc. that warn of the "dangers" of the new age movement. I think it's an important cultural/historical context for this page that's missing. Thoughts? Ceiap (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  New age and occultism