lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Draupadi

message: The tone change tag is noted. Will work on this page. - Panchalidraupadi (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks 🙏  — DaxServer (t · c) 17:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language clean-up and Tone Change 

message: Hello ,
You had updated the main image on this page here  because the face was not clearly visible in previous image. However, an anon user is now disputing it and reverting it back citing the Sita. Can we pls discuss this?
- (Panchalidraupadi (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I am following up on this. Could you pls respond? Panchalidraupadi (talk) 05:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Rationale remains the same - face is not clearly visible. Also, she is portrayal of Draupadi as the maid Sairandhri, which is not representative of her principal role as a queen or a goddess. Redtigerxyz  Talk  11:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I agree with you. Ravi Varma's pic portrays her as the Sairindhri which is not Draupadi's main role in Mahabharata. But the anon user has been trying to revert it for quite some time. Request you to put forth your views on this in the future if needed.  Panchalidraupadi (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Discussion 

message: A user named NairaAdhya has changed lot of information regarding Pandavas marriage to Draupadi to her marriage with Arjuna only. I hope any expert will correct this information. Also she has changed the information of other pages related to Pandavas and Draupadi Sahilkadam11000 (talk) 06:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to Wikipedia expert to update pages related to Pandavas and Draupadi
Talk:Economic materialism

message: I agree that this article is currently sucky. Hippie bias in the article. Needs to be connected more with the other Materialism article. That "personal relationships" should be put above wealth/objects is an assertion Wikipedia is not entitled to make. But since when do anti-Materialists bother with any restriction on what they can say and pretend to be neutral. Colour me successfully offended. If this kind of thing isn't brought into check across the whole encyclopedia, someone else, not me, will create a right-wing fork of the whole damn thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.252.224.17 (talk • contribs) .
:See Conservapedia... Richard001 05:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sucky article

message: Does this page add value?  Should it be tagged for cleanup?  Or for AfD?  Regards, Ben Aveling 01:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup? Delete? 

message: Could not this page on "Materialism" be subsumed under "Greed" or "Avarice"? Materialism is a philosophical view-point, not a human failing of some kind. I don't think many people used "material" in this mistaken sense before the release of Madonna's "Material Girl."
Agreed. This page is pure mashed potatoes. No one with any modicum of philosophical training recognizes the word "materialism" as used on this page as having any meaning. As the previous commentator suggests, "materialism" is the same thing as "greed," "avarice," "cupidity," etc., How does one recommend a page for deletion?Stealstrash (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deserves deletion 

message: "raison d'être for human existence" actually means "reason for existence for human existence", maybe drop one "existence"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.178.22.137 (talk) 22:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  french language mishmash
Talk:Franco-Benoni

message: I have moved this to Franco-Benoni from its original location, Franco-Sicilian Defense. I'm pretty confident the former is the more common name; it's the name given to the opening in the Oxford Companion to Chess, in this article by Tim Harding, and this CD-ROM, for example. I can't find comparable references calling it the Franco-Sicilian (that name seems to be used, where it's used at all, for the common setup against the King's Indian Attack with c5, d5 and e6). --Camembert 20:05, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Old talk
Portal talk:Astronomy/Events

message: I altered the Events code so that we can create monthly pages which will appear automatically at the start of each month.  I've put together tables for upcoming months, which I can put into the relevant pages, but I thought I'd check here first, see if anyone has any suggestions for improving them first, or if there's a better way of doing it than this. Worldtraveller 20:07, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Very true - I've changed the heading there to 'Astronomical events in current month'. Worldtraveller 09:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: How does one edit the list of astronomical events in the current month? "Orionid" is misspelled "Orionide". I would also like to add mention of the Giacobinid (Draconid) meteor shower peaking on October 8, and the occulation of the Pleiades by the Moon on October 9/10. --Shawn81 05:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added an 'edit' help link to make this easier. Thanks for helping out! Awolf002 11:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent, thanks so much. I added the discussed events to the list. Thanks for letting me do the honors. :) --Shawn81 12:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that Awolf. I remember it took me like 5 minutes to find the page for September events when I was trying to check it out. At least, now I have easy access. --Nishkid64 00:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Your welcome! I hope you will find even more possible improvments to this portal. It would be nice to get it featured at some point. Awolf002 01:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astronomical events in October 

message: So long time no one has updated this field? Newone (talk) 10:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update
Portal talk:Doctor Who

message: WikiProject Portals is back!
The project was rebooted and completely overhauled on April 17th, 2018. Its goals are to revitalize the entire portal system, make building and maintaining portals easier, support the ongoing improvement of portals and the editors dedicated to this, and design the portals of the future.
As of May 2nd, 2018, membership is at 60 editors, and growing. You are welcome to join us.
There are design initiatives for revitalizing the portals system as a whole, and for improving each component of portals.  So far, 2 new dynamic components have been developed: Template:Transclude lead excerpt and Template:Transclude random excerpt.
Tools are provided for building and maintaining portals, including automated portals that update themselves in various ways.
And, if you are bored and would like something to occupy your mind, we have a wonderful task list.
From your friendly neighborhood Portals WikiProject. Hope to see you there. Sincerely,      — The Transhumanist    07:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice from the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals|Portals WikiProject]] 

message: The portal has been overhauled. The box headers now have the TARDIS blue color (diff). Selected articles have been automated. A big navbox has been added. Subpages have been streamlined (diff1, diff2, diff3). Talk page got a toolbox at the top. —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  2020 June overhaul
Talk:Mutter (song)

message: What's the point of linkifying "5/4" if it redirects to Time signature? --mihhkel 16:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  5/4 
Talk:Scientific consensus on climate change/Archive 1

message: :Surveys of climate scientists and meteorologists don't lend much credibility to the argument that a consensus exists either:
:A survey of over 400 German, American and Canadian climate researchers conducted by Dennis Bray of the Meteorologisches Institut der Universitat Hamburg and Hans von Storch of GKSS Forschungszentrum and reported in the United Nations Climate Change Bulletin, for example, found that only 10% of the researchers surveyed "strongly agreed" with the statement "We can say for certain that global warming is a process already underway." Further, 35% of those surveyed either disagreed with the statement or were undecided. Perhaps even more interesting, 67% of the researchers either disagreed or were uncertain about the proposition that climate change will occur so suddenly that a lack of preparation would devastate certain parts of the world -- the underlying assumption on which the talks in Kyoto, Japan were based. Close to half of the researchers -- 48% -- indicated that they don't have faith in the forecasts of the global climate models, the strongest argument in favor of quick, decisive, international action to counter the threat of global warming. Another 20% expressed uncertainty about these models. 
I guess it depends on who reads the survey. The folks at the National Center for Public Policy Research say Bray and von Storch's survey DISPROVES the notion that there's a scientific consensus in favor of the global warming theory. --Uncle Ed 21:22, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: (William M. Connolley 21:37, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Bray and von Storch

message: (William M. Connolley 09:38, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eds Eds 

message: Please read the new articles and consider commenting on them and/or moving some material to either one. Note that climate forcings is not specific to global climate forcings, so if it makes sense to create a separate section please do.
I hope this helps get this part of Wikipedia sorted out.
Posted to all discussion pages listed in the "See Also" section of global climate change.
--Ben 03:48, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Articles: [[Global climate change]] and [[Climate forcings]] 

message: (William M. Connolley 13:35, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: (William M. Connolley 16:07, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, the "#" thing does not work right so I wasn't thinking of the right piece.  I think the Kerr stuff is a good comparison.  I abandoned his dark cloud characterization the minute you said he got it wrong, and his report on a meeting of climate modelers, I also knew was not peer reviewed, and although I disagreed with his conclusion that the models were mutually confirming each other despite the extreme differences in their local detail, I accept is report of those differences, unless there is good reason to think he also got those wrong.  Was there something else you had in mind?--Silverback 04:43, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  On adding "non peer reviewed"
Talk:David Simpson (Northern Ireland politician)

message: Almost have the links here are for David Simpson (politician) (I only put the disambig in there to allow a page to be created) - anyone care to judge which is the better known? Timrollpickering 20:44, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Who should be at this page
Talk:The Arrogant Worms

message: Should we maybe make an article about the book "Get Stupid!" and have a link to it somewhere in this article, as opposed to having a section about it? --Methegreat 20:48, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Get Stupid!

message: Are the Worms really based in Toronto?  I know they have done (still do?) a lot of their recording in Campbellford, Ontario. WilyD 14:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Historically they're from Kingston, currently they're from Toronto. So, it depends on what kind of "from" for which an answer is being sought. The article seems to cover both well enough. — Saxifrage ✎ 05:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Toronto?

message: Shouldn't this be at The Arrogant Worms? See for comparison The Beatles, The Kinks etc. I know there's a redirect from the "The" name, so it's not particularly important, but if "The" is part of their official name, it really ought to be in the article title too as with the bands mentioned above. Loganberry (Talk) 23:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's some confusion because early albums call them Arrogant Worms rather than The Arrogant Worms. However, current usage seems to be consistently with the "The". I'd support the move. Anyone else? — Saxifrage ✎ 04:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title? 
Talk:Grandia: Parallel Trippers

message: Does anyone have any suggestions for what they would like me to give [more] information on within this page? If so, please feel free to mention it here.
Also, is linking to my translation/walkthrough work really considered to be spam? The game is very hard to play through without it...
:Probably not. Sorry, I re-added it. For some reason I thought there was already a fansite link in the article and removed it per the one fansite link per article rule. In future, you might want to add the link to the bottom of the section. Adding it at the top makes it look more like spam. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 17:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Improvement
Talk:Andrewsarchus

message: "It contains two species, A. mongoliensis and A. crassum. It was formerly placed in the families Mesonychidae or Arctocyonidae,"
Do we really know there were only two species, or do the authors mean that two species are known? Usually, only a tiny fraction of the animals are fossilised (though relatively more large mammals than e.g. insects, of course), and far from all fossils are discovered.
Pål Jensen (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Two species – do we know?

message: The second species may originally have been named as A. “crassum,” but ICZN rules prescribe that the correct name is A. crassus, matching the masculine gender of the genus name Andrewsarchus. N. Pharris (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second species name
Talk:Scale insect

message: Notes on the this instead of the other way around.  
* I added a little content from web resources on controlling scale insects, and clarifiedto individual species. 
* Similarly, the article is too short to have two images. I promoted :Image:Wax scale.jpg over :Image:Scale insect on houseplant.jpg because, at the reduced size that it appears in the article, it's easier to see the bugs in the former picture. It would be good to have more photos to show the wide variety of scales, but only in conjunction with a much longer article.
Zack 21:13, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All good changes it looks like to me. I would assume there is more to say, economic effect, detail on their lifecycles and pesticides etc. But I'll leave that to someone that knows the stuff. - Taxman 03:06, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
User: BugWhisperer Note that scale insects are in the Order Homoptera, not Hemiptera as stated in all of Wikipedia's entries (BugWhisperer (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Omri

message: There is not proof that Omri and Israel have any connection. Native American Tribe Cherokee was in North Carolina. = Therefore North Carolina is all Cherokee and the entire state represents the boundaries of the Cherokee tribe??? Or the Reverse, any tribe that existed before the Founding of North Carolina, is still a citizen of North Carolina.
I understand people are trying to justify the existence of Israel, since it was cut from Syria by Britain in 1922 AD/CE. Then in 8 hours in 1948 the US invented a Jewish Religious State as a Nation or Country, by a cutting lines out of a drawing of "Palestine" in an unannounced-UN-meeting by only a few people at United Nations after 12am & then Harry S. Truman signed papers before Congress opened at about 8AM in the morning on a day in 1948 AD/CE. He may have had the papers all night and just made them official with the Presidents signature so that the United States could not debate his actions in recognizing something had had never existed before that morning.
It bothers me that people are running around rampant on Wikipedia declaring everything to be Jewish Hebrew or Yahweh. The Meshna Stele http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesha_Stele is in a different language. How would the tetra-gram be on it? It's not even in a Hebrew variation script? Some author claimed it had "four Greek letters" on it somewhere. But I looked at the stone. No one even bothers to circle the claim??? = "Look foreign language. God existed back then too." Yeah people had god's. Show me the name of "nine" in Hebrew. Even the Hebrew text Moses wrote says "I am that I am" and not YHVH, etc. The 4 letters aren't common until the Masoretic Text.  4WhatMakesSense (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't debate here if Israel deserves to be a country, see WP:NOT#FORUM. As you probably know, Wikipedia editors don't establish facts, facts are established by scholars who live by publish or perish and published in reliable sources. We simply render what the sources say. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious Text without Matching History, Unfounded claims that all East of the Mediterranean must be Israel, & all kings must be Israel Kings 

message: I have made a map of the area occupied by Omri and Ahab, based on what I have read. I'm not a historian so I hesitate to add it here before someone more knowledgeable has checked it. --EnSamulili 21:19, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: "...Zionism was created mainly by non-religious (sometimes anti-religious) people..."?!?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.49.92 (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality, relevance, etc.
Talk:M source

message: The following statements, excerpted as quotations from the article, are complete hogwash: "most scholars accept the Four Document Hypothesis" (link to Streeter's 4DH); "M ...  continues to be a widely accepted theory among biblical scholars".  Within the last 20 years, virtually no one in the scholarly community agrees that M was a single written source document as postulated by Streeter, nor do most agree with Streeter's conception of a primitive proto-Luke (Q + L).  M and p-Luke as Streeter conceived of them are effectively dead as hypothetical source documents. Ignocrates (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate and misleading article 

message: The FOUR document hypothesis talks only of three documents. The page for the FDH mentions four (Mark, Q, M & L), so it is curious that L is absent here. ntnon (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  FOUR Document Hypothesis
Talk:Seattle's Best Coffee

message: Maybe I'm not familiar with every wikipedia formatting rule, but I don't think "USA" needs to be added to "Seattle, Washington" ...is there another Seattle, Washington that you need to differentiate between? I don't think so. Leaving this up for a few days. --Hersch 21:36, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case, the addition is probably not needed. Seattle, Washington is a place well-known enough so that readers outside of USA can also understand very well what is meant. Solver 21:49, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The USA addition

message: "It has recently been learned that the 5 stores in British Columbia have been acquired by Blenz Coffee, the primary competitor to Starbucks in Western Canada."
Umm, Second Cup is the primary competitor to starbucks in Western Canada, Blenz is only in the lower mainland of bc it seems, hardly making it a competitor at all, let alone starbucks' primary.
Quackgrassacrez 23:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blenz

message: So if Starbucks owns Seattle's Finest, then I must ask where is it positioned in regard to Starbucks? Upmarket? Downmarket? Thanks. 203.171.193.129 12:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Position in market

message: Seattle's Best also has retail locations outside of North America, though I'm not sure how to determine where all of them are. I'm writing from the Philippines, and there are several throughout the Metro Manila area. 192.168.255.254 13:54, 15 Aug 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would love to see a source about distribution of distributors but I have not seen one. Who has such a source? Please share.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Retail Locations

message: 3 out of 5 source links on the page are dead. Both from starbucks and one from adweek  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.126.55 (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Links
Talk:British S-class submarine (1931)

message: The entry for Seraph in the third-group box at the bottom has only the initial pennant number (S189), whereas the boat is probably better known as  P219 - might be an idea to include both perhaps. Ian Dunster 21:36, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  HMS Seraph 

message: Why has Sea Devil been included with the second group? She was ordered (as P.244) under the 1941 Programme and was - to the best of my knowledge - identical to the rest of the Third Group (although she was one of that small number of Third Group vessels not fitted with an external torpedo tube). Certainly she was not built to the pre-war designs that comprise the Fist and Second Groups.
There was certainly two sub-groups within the war-built 'S' Class - the 842-ton vessels built with an external torpedo tube, and the 814-ton vessels built without. I have placed the Third Group into the proper programme sequence, but will not move Sea Devil before giving someone the opportunity of explaining why she has been placed with the Second Group.  Rif Winfield 20:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HMS Sea Devil 

message: I've noticed the link to  the HMS Seawolf page gives her pennant number as 47S; I thought the format was letter, then number. Most of the pages linked to from here do the same. Is this correct? Xyl 54 (talk) 00:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: HMS Starfish (19S) is shown in a photo from Battleships-Cruisers.co.uk (right hand side, about halfway down) with the 'backwards' pennant writ large on the fin, so I'd assume its correct. I thought the same thing, its counterintuitive to most pennants. I'd love to know why the RN did this! -- saberwyn 02:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pennant numbers 

message: What was the range? Surface and submerged?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.135.135 (talk) 01:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Range
Talk:Coat (disambiguation)

message: I thought one bolded every definition in a disambig. page?  Quill 21:59, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: The usage and topic of  is under discussion, see Talk:Coats Group PLC -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 07:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Coats Group