lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Province of Carolina

message: Wasn't Carolina divided in 1710? –radiojon 19:44, 2004 Apr 5 (UTC)
:Uh, the Internet seems confused by this. I suppose we'll actually have to crack a book. :) jengod 20:00, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)
I think you're close. Looking at NC and SC histories, I see various dates. It seems like they grew somewhat separately and operated practically independently for some time. I've seen 1710 and 1712 as the date that the colony was divided. I can't tell how formal the division was. South Carolina did not become a crown colony until 1729, which explains where that date comes from. I have to run -- so no time to revise right now. Feel free to jump in. Bkonrad | Talk 20:04, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: On this bit of the article:
"...the first permanent English settlement in the area was in 1653, established mainly by emigrants from the Virginia Colony with others from New England and Bermuda. Pre-empting the royal charter by ten years, they settled on the banks of the Chowan and Roanoke Rivers in the Albemarle Sound area in the northeast corner of present-day North Carolina. This settlement came to be known in Virginia as "Rogues' Harbor"."
A source for this would be nice.  My understanding is that one of the early Virginia governor's (Spotswood?) called it Rogue's Harbour in a letter.  The term may have been used a bit by Virginians, but the words "..came to be known as..." imply general use.  I would have thought the general name for the settlements was Albemarle Settlements or just "Albemarle".  ..what's the source on "Rogue's Harbour"? Pfly 18:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As the one who added that particular bit of text, it came from here (which was listed under External links as it dates from a pre-Cite.php era) , where it says Indeed so many of these undesirables came that the Virginians called Carolina the Rogues' Harbour. I'll grant that this doesn't give a very good indication of how common the term was or for how long it was used, but I don't think I completely misrepresented the sense of the source. older ≠ wiser 18:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rogue's Harbor
Talk:Purple (Stone Temple Pilots album)

message: What about the diffrent artwork printed on diffrent CDs?
--buzlink 02:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Give me an example, and I'll add it.  I did a Google Image search on 213 covers, and they were all the same. --Evil Eccentric 00:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Is it officially stated that this album is called "Purple", or could it actually be "紫" and simply pronounced that way? --Evil Eccentric 00:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Album title 

message: Does anyone know about this? I know where to find it but should I post it? --BlooWilt 21:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Unglued" flash video 

message: Someone has put "alternative metal" in the album's genre, can anyone else verify this? There are certainly a few heavy rock songs, but I wouldn't class it as metal (compared to the previous album). It just doesn't seem right to me. ConCass (talk) 14:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genre 

message: Add Psychedelic Rock
Source: https://www.allmusic.com/album/purple-mw0000116853 Ilovelife68 68 (talk) 08:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genre 

message: Several sites and Wiki list Paul Leary of the Butthole Surfers as performing "the last guitar solo of the album." Not true. He plays the solo on the third track, Lounge Fly 137.103.230.145 (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul Leary
Talk:No. 4 (album)

message: CHANGE IT BACK TO "No. 4" NOT THE N "little o" 4
YEAH!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.91.0 (talk) 05:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: title change

message: The entire section, "Title", is nothing but original research. An editor made a connection between No. 4 heroin in a book about opiates and the title of the album, but there is no source that actually makes the connection. I'm removing the entire section. Perhaps in Weiland's future autobiography (tentatively titled Not Dead & Not For Sale) will he elucidate somewhat on any double entendre. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 08:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 
Talk:Decimal calendar

message: Please don't put "atlantium" stuff in this article; it's not relevant at all. Ashibaka ✎ 20:27, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: :"No decimal calendar proposal to date has gained a level of public acceptance sufficient to ensure its longterm success, and some have argued that the cost of any proposed conversion would far outweigh the savings that it might deliver"
If this isn't weaselly language, I don't know what is! QuartierLatin1968 05:57, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Nothing to do with Atlantium

message: It occurs to me that there are no decimal calendars here.  The Romulus calendar simply didn't name the two or three winter months.  The Egyptian and French calendars had 10-day weeks, but 12 months of 30 days. No other calendars are described here.  Looking at the history, the article seems to have been created to promote Atlantium, which is no longer mentioned. So it seems that three unrelated calendars are lumped together due to some tenuous connection with the number 10.  In my opinion, it therefore fails to meet the criterion of notability and should probably be deleted. --Nike (talk) 07:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this subject exist? 

message: Might it be beneficial to provide some examples of how ten months might be achieved in practice, rather than (or in addition to) the average length? It might be four or five months of thirty-six days and the rest thirty-seven, or if more intent on preserving the decimal aspect, nine months of forty days to at least preserve divisibility with ten and then five or six days in the tenth month. If merely preserving divisibility with factors of ten, then five or six months of thirty-five days and the rest of forty days, or four or five months of thirty-six days and the rest of thirty-eight days, might be used. Paculino (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Practical equivalent, not (only) average?
Talk:Gay sex

message: I've just listed this page for deletion.  It's just a redirect from another page also listed for deletion, and contains some stunning factual errors as well, to wit: "While many common same-sex sexual activities are also common different-sex sexual activities, the former includes oral sex, frottage ("frot"), tribadism and anal sex."  There is really nothing to say on this topic that hasn't already been said less POV elsewhere. Exploding Boy 01:02, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)
:Please, oh please, tell me where! I want to organize the articles relating to sexuality so that there is as little duplication as possible. --Uncle Ed 12:05, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: VfD

message: gay sex gets 9 million google hits, sssp gets only 75,000. Open and shut case for page move. --Uncle Ed 20:30, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: At least you didn't move it to Homosexual sex, but its entirely not an open and shut case.Hyacinth 20:35, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I didn't make my case very well here. You do realize that those 75,000 hits are virtually ALL porn, right?Hyacinth 02:37, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Move

message: I clicked on a link to gay sex in a different article and was redirected to human sexual behavior. And the article doesn't even have the word gay in it. What's going on? Asinthior (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect
Talk:Invariant theory

message: Surely, it is an overstatement to say that "It is customary to say that the work of David Hilbert, put an end to classical invariant theory". The statement I remember hearing when I studied invariant theory in college was "Hilbert's proof of the Fundamental Theorem for Form Invariants almost killed the whole subject" (I forget whether that was Weyl himself or Gian Carlo Rota).
BTW: what does "related in fact to" in the phrase "what was actually studied in the classical phase of invariant theory related in fact to" really mean? Why not tell us what the relation IS?
Reply. On the first point, perhaps it would be better to say it was at one time customary to say.... 
On the second point: obviously a full treatment of the topic would delve into the classical language (of contragredient variables, or whatever they were called). It's kind of a big job to get everything in: why the old guys were studying invariants, and how what they did fits in with a modern point of view. 
Charles Matthews 21:08, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

message: I find it unnecessary and highly-annoying to come across these Wikipedia articles that have nothing in them decipherable to someone who does not happen to be in the field under consideration.  It's a pointless exercise whose sole objective is for the author to get people to go along with the author's actual objective: "Everybody look at me and recognize how smart I am!!!"  If the author had wanted to convey information, then he or she would have bothered to include at least a short summary explaining what "invariant theory" is actually all about, and what it's useful for.
Try to understand: This article contains *no* information.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.52.34 (talk) 04:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary Abstruseness.
Talk:Dmitry Donskoy

message: Please explain why you removed the RIP date, otherwise someone smart will reinsert it. Mikkalai 20:45, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I added it myself a while ago, but I can't confirm it as reliably as I'd like. You can add it back if you want...do you have a better idea about this than me? Everyking 20:49, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[May 19]] 

message: It is my understanding that ruling Mosvow only gave Dmitri Donskoi the title Prince, not Grand Prince; this he got from ruling Vladimir. As far as I understand too, and the coverage of this kind of thing isn't great, there were no two Grand Princes in the Khanate ruled zone until Mikhail of Tver is found using the title Grand Prince of Tver in 1375 along side Dmitry Grand Prince of Vladimir. Please enlighten me if I am wrong. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Prince and Grand Prince
Talk:8000 (number)

message: Okay 2600:8800:3221:8C00:9B:B29B:948A:2D25 (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This question seems to be covered adequately already in the lead. Certes (talk) 13:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  What number comes after 8000 
Talk:Albuquerque, New Mexico

message: What happened to the section on Etymology? That’s a rhetorical question as I know what happened. Five years ago, it was correct with “reputable” source citations; and then someone messed with it… and then someone else… and then someone else until it was so “wrong”, it was deleted altogether. As a result, the current minimalist section on the founding and naming of the outpost and eventual town is relegated to “a Duke” and a “town in Spain”. And the only citation is the “historical foundation”; typically defined as a social club of retirees who read a couple of books and were born and raised there. That is not a reputable source citation. I’m not from New Mexico and frankly this kind of amateurish history is driving me away from Wikipedia but someone who cares should care more. It’s embarrassing. 72.218.205.71 (talk) 00:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology? 

message: Spanish 2600:6C56:4800:23C8:E036:C9F5:AA7E:C6DA (talk) 11:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  East high high school 

message: Check the 2 parts/sections about religious groups - both are described as "the second largest" and that is not possible. If it is meant to be described as the Abrahamitic religions it needs to be clarified. 83.248.75.122 (talk) 08:46, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious groups 

message: The redirect Sunset Ranch, New Mexico 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.  Utopes (talk / cont) 06:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Sunset Ranch, New Mexico]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Jean-Marie Souriau

message: "La Physique Mathématique ne doit pas être confondue avec la Physique Théorique, dont Souriau donne une définition personnelle : la Physique, moins l'expérience et les Mathématiques, moins la rigueur."
Removed this, which is a good joke even in French.
Charles Matthews 21:20, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Talk:Flag of New Mexico

message: The red and yellow were the Spanish colours in 1920, when the Nex Mexico flag was designed. The red and yellow flag was designed in 1785 for the Spanish Navy -New Mexico is inland- and became the Spanish national and army flag in late 1843...when Mexico was already an independent country. The reference to Elizabeth of Castile and the Habsburg "Tercios" (strong infantry regiments) sounds rather anachronistic.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.142.175.22 (talk) 11:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Same thing for the "Conquistadores".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.142.175.22 (talk) 12:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. We have no way of knowing whether Dr. Mera got his "colors of Old Spain" from the arms of Castile, the Coronela variant of the Burgundian cross, or the 1785 ensign. It would be WP:OR to assert any of those as the source of the flag colors of New Mexico. Ibadibam (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin of Spanish colors
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/British Government

message: I have flagged this project as inactive as there seems to have been little activity since early 2008. Unless someone has a specific interest in reviving this project I would suggest a merge with WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom would be appropriate.
I will leave this here for a few days to allow editors a chance to respond before adding the merge tag. Road Wizard (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am, but one person doth not a project make.Ironholds (talk) 06:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there anything in particular that you are trying to get out of this project? The scope and goals on the main project page say that the only intention here is to define a standard format for succession boxes to ease navigation between related articles. That goal seems to have been achieved with standard boxes used for many political biographies. Where do you want the project to go from here and is there anything you want to happen that the more advanced and active Politics of the United Kingdom project can't accomplish instead? Road Wizard (talk) 01:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When I say active I mean "I edit articles within the scope of the British Government". No reason that couldn't be included in Politics of the United Kingdom; indeed, considering how interlinked the two are it seems pointless to have separate projects. Ironholds (talk) 01:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inactive
Talk:Jerusalem/Archive 2

message: User:Wik keeps removing entire sections concerning the importance of Jerusalem to Jewish people and Judaism. Now, this is not about Israel's policies or wars anymore. I also consider this article a litmus test for the WP. So far, pretty sour. --Humus sapiens 23:07, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tightened that section and what's left of it is now in User:Humus_sapiens/sandbox/Importance_of_Jerusalem_to_Jews. You're welcome to modify/contribute. --Humus sapiens|Talk 01:11, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance of Jerusalem to Jews and Judaism 

message: # We should have a clear section in the article Jerusalem as the capital of Israel which covers all the factual stuff that's been brought up in the matter on these talk pages. The intro is made more controversial because of the lack of detailed information in the article proper, at least in my view.
# The section entitled Jerusalem, Israel's officially designated capital under History is totally random. It should be titled Mayors. Or possibly Local government.
# The demographics section is poor. By analogy with Demographics of France, etc, it should be current demographics. Historical demographics should go into the historical section (eg, put numbers next to "By the 1860s, the city, with an area of only 1 square kilometer, was already overcrowded"). Raw stats are in any case uninformative. I'm thinking it would be good to just delete that section, in its current form.
# Image at the bottom is nice - well done.
# "The status of East Jerusalem remains a highly controversial issue." - redundant
# Needs image markup changed, where appropriate.
Martin 01:52, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aide memoire/discuter 

message: I removed the following phrase: "[a city] which lies on the border between Israel and the West Bank". It is both Israel's official position, as well as my personal POV, and the POV of many oter Israelis (and presumably, also, some non-Israelis), that Jerusalem is entirely within Israel, and not "on the border" (Parts of Jerusalem which were in the West Bank prior to the Six-Day war were officially annexed to Israel in 1968). Therefore saying it is "on the border" is not NPOV (as well as saying that it is entirely in Israel, I suppose). -- uriber 09:07, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes: that's a very good point. Martin 13:47, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "on the border"
Talk:Opportunity rover timeline

message: Because the timeline was getting rather long for me to edit
I've split the reports after February 2 into pseudo-months of 4 to 5 weeks each:
* MER-B timeline for 2004 February
* MER-B timeline for 2004 March
* MER-B timeline for 2004 April
March has gaps and the sol numbers are incomplete, please feel free to fix this. -Wikibob | Talk 23:16, 2004 Apr 5 (UTC)
: it was getting too long. I suggest keeping the current month up front, while archiving the January stuff. Put the links at the top and keep a few highlights, heavily-pruned but linked, from the old months. -wwoods 02:08, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  archive done, highlights done. -Wikibob | Talk 11:29, 2004 Apr 6 (UTC)
I guess this project will never be completed. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:08, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
Is anyone editing this page anymore? --Timmywimmy 12:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Check the history of this page. Edit frequency has gone down after the rover was "freed" from its "sandy grave". Awolf002 15:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Talk:Four sights

message: The article is a direct reproduction of this, this, and this. Does it infringe on copyright?
:None of the above links are online anymore. Moreover, the article has been considerably rewritten. Kathedra87 (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I rewrote the article to make it more objective and point out that the four sights are part of the Buddha legend. Kathedra87 (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments
Talk:Before Polish Corridor

message: Since the Bronze Age, the southern Baltic coast, from the Vistula Lagoon west was the ancient homeland of the Germans, its indigenous people. It is difficult to assign ethnicity to ancient cultural groups, and the earliest such can be done with complete confidence is between 1200 and 900 BC. At the time the region was under the Nordic-North German Bronze Culture. - nationalistic fantasies of 19th century German historians. It is not supported even by modern German historians.
Germans remained the sole inhabitants of the southern Baltic coast until the seventh and eight centuries AD - the Slavic tribes crossed Elbe already in 6/7th century. At that time southern coast of Baltic was inhabited by Slavs.
By 982 AD, Germans were once again the sole owners of all the lands west of the Oder River, and they began to settle the lands east of it - Germans conquered Polabian Slavs in the second half of 12th century. 
By 1181 AD, the Germans were at last successful in recovering all their ancient ancestral homeland along the southern Baltic east to the Vistula River which was the border separating them from the Old Prussian people. - in 1181 the Slavic Pomerania (Stettin) became barely a fief of Emperor. Nothing more.
One section was governed by a Duke of the (German) Holy Roman Empire, but remained outside the Empire and responsible to the Polish monarch. This section of the coast lay just to the west of the Vistula and was called Pomerelia. - What? 
still ruled by Germans who were members of the Holy Roman Empire - I will not comment it.
I also removed romantic German mithology which has nothing to do with facts. I HAVE NOT included Polish mitology instead, which is as stupid as German is.
:Yeti, why is there a page called "Before Polish Corridor" at all? john 22:57, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have got no idea. This fragment is extremally stupid, as link to Pomerania would be sufficient. But I do not want to remove it on myself, as I already re-edited it heavily. It is why I moved it to separate article .Yeti 23:04, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: Sure.Yeti 23:32, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)