lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Missouri v. Holland

message: For some time I have been working on revisions to the Bricker Amendment article.  I finally posted it and have a PR at Wikipedia:Peer review/Bricker Amendment/archive1.  I'd welcome comments.  I know all those references may seem extravagant, but I'm hoping to get it as an FA and those voters want lots of footnotes.  PedanticallySpeaking 16:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bricker Amendment 

message: The line -- the first line in both the introductory part and the holding part of this article -- that describes what this case was about, is terrible, and very confusing. The point is that the state does not have power to nullify a US treaty. It's not that hard to explain.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanHakimi (talk • contribs) 23:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very confusing opening line. 
Talk:Reid v. Covert

message: For some time I have been working on revisions to the Bricker Amendment article.  I finally posted it and have a PR at Wikipedia:Peer review/Bricker Amendment/archive1.  I'd welcome comments.  I know all those references may seem extravagant, but I'm hoping to get it as an FA and those voters want lots of footnotes.  PedanticallySpeaking 16:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bricker Amendment

message: I'm not a lawyer, and this article is creating confusion in my attempt to understand.   Another article points to Reid v. Covert as the case that established that a Treaty cannot give to the Federal Government a power that it does not already have based on its enumerated powers.  
This article also mentions "Treaty", but does not mention a treaty as defined in the Constitution - an agreement made by the President and ratified by a 2/3 vote of the U.S. Senate.   From my reading, the case seems to be mostly about whether the UCMJ can be applied to a non-military person for a crime committed outside the territory of the United States.
If this is truly about a "Treaty", please provide a source as to what the Treaty is and when the U.S. Senate passed it.    If there was no treaty, then mention of treaties in these articles is creative interpretations.69.37.85.3 (talk) 02:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that the case itself did not have to do with "Treaty", but the court's opinion talked about "Treaty" from the Treaty Clause of the constitution. So the article is correct. --208.80.119.67 (talk) 04:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Treaty" vs "Executive Agreement" 

message: I found the part at the end of the article which reads "...the case represents the only time a lawyer lost in the Supreme Court of the United States but prevailed on rehearing." to be missing context. Their appears to be no explanation in the article as to how he lost in the Supreme Court at first but later prevailed on rehearing meaning that sentence refers to something not explained previosuely in the article. The article really needs some further details about the case including a summery of the events that lead to the military wife's conviction in a military court, how the her conviction was challenge, how her lawyer lost in the Supreme court at first but later prevailed on rehearing. --Cab88 (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some missing key details 

message: "Only after the Senate approves the treaty can the President ratify it."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.210.34.185 (talk) 07:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratification 

message: The article states that Ms. Covert could not be retried but does not explain why. If the military court did not have jurisdiction, then I would think that a new trial by a civilian court would not constitute double jeopardy. Why couldn't she be retried?Bill (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Retrial
Talk:Liberalization

message: I reverted this addition because it was a copyright violation, apparently lifted directly from this paper. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright violation 

message: Hi. I don't we can use the Prague Spring as an example of the revesral of liberalisation as cited in the text in quotation marks below. If it had been an internal (national) decision to pull the breaks on the process, yes, but that was not the case. The decision to quash the process came from the Soviets, who sent in Warsaw Pact forces. "Liberalization of autocratic regimes may precede democratization (or not, as in the case of the Prague Spring)". Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) 11:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prague Spring
Talk:Progressive disclosure

message: The folding editor article mentions "disclosure triangles".
They work about the same as the little "+" and "-" icons used in the tree view of many file managers.
Is there a better name for those little icons?
--68.0.124.33 (talk) 02:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would leave it as-is. The term "disclosure triangle" is in common usage in interface design. For example, the Apple Human Interface Guidelines chapter on Controls documents the use of disclosure triangles (among other progressive disclosure widgets used in Mac OS X).  Bratling (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  disclosure triangles 

message: As mentioned above, the bulk of this article was copied bodily from . That is not only a copyvio and plagiarism, but also the result is not up to our standards. There are incomplete references like "Carroll and Rosson (1997)" -- and I couldn't find a Carroll and Rosson article that addresses progressive disclosure. It mentions "consultancy research (including our own)" -- who is "we"? It is written as a how-to, not an encyclopedia article. It addresses the user: "you reveal only ...". It is incoherent (especially the "effective use on the web" section). I have removed the plagiarized material. --Macrakis (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Plagiarism
Talk:Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918

message: For some time I have been working on revisions to the Bricker Amendment article.  I finally posted it and have a PR at Wikipedia:Peer review/Bricker Amendment/archive1.  I'd welcome comments.  I know all those references may seem extravagant, but I'm hoping to get it as an FA and those voters want lots of footnotes.  PedanticallySpeaking 16:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bricker Amendment

message: Hi, I'm a senior wildlife biology student whose assignment was to add a photo to a wikipedia page. I donated a personal photo of the eagle feather to the commons and added it to the article in order to help illustrate the portion of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act that prohibits the taking of raptor bird parts for their protection. I hope everyone else feels this photo was an appropriate contributions. Hello, and thank you for lending your time to help improve Wikipedia! If you are interested in editing more often, I suggest you create an account to gain additional privileges. Happy editing! 
Tperkins2 (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture Added

message: I think the article should include a statement pointing out that this Act criminalizes the possession of feathers of any of these species, even unintentionally, as this is something that the "common man" would not expect to be illegal. Having a feather stuck to a shoe and having it tracked into one's house can result in 6 months in prison or a $15,000 fine. Comments? 152.51.48.1 (talk) 14:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Criminalization of feather possession
Talk:Timeline of events related to the Bricker Amendment

message: For some time I have been working on revisions to the Bricker Amendment article.  I finally posted it and have a PR at Wikipedia:Peer review/Bricker Amendment/archive1.  I'd welcome comments.  I know all those references may seem extravagant, but I'm hoping to get it as an FA and those voters want lots of footnotes.  PedanticallySpeaking 16:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bricker Amendment
Talk:82nd United States Congress

message: For some time I have been working on revisions to the Bricker Amendment article.  I finally posted it and have a PR at Wikipedia:Peer review/Bricker Amendment/archive1.  I'd welcome comments.  I know all those references may seem extravagant, but I'm hoping to get it as an FA and those voters want lots of footnotes.  PedanticallySpeaking 16:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bricker Amendment

message: The introduction of this article states Both chambers had a Democratic majority. However the Party summary below shows a Republican Majority in the Senate, which temporarily changed to the Democrats before it turned back to the Republicans. Which of these two statements is correct?  Also under Leadership it shows a Democratic Majority again. It looks like some more research needs to be done for clarification. WAG57 16 Nov 2015  — Preceding unsigned comment added by WAG57 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Democratic Majority in the Senate?
Talk:83rd United States Congress

message: For some time I have been working on revisions to the Bricker Amendment article.  I finally posted it and have a PR at Wikipedia:Peer review/Bricker Amendment/archive1.  I'd welcome comments.  I know all those references may seem extravagant, but I'm hoping to get it as an FA and those voters want lots of footnotes.  PedanticallySpeaking 16:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bricker Amendment
Talk:Matt Hume

message: "The son of a policeman, Hume's father briefly trained with Bruce Lee."   - It means Hume's father was the son of a policeman (i.e. Hume's grandfather was a policeman).  I would correct it, but I don't know anything about Matt Hume - maybe that's what the author actually meant. Kjl 16:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dangling participle 

message: D.Johnson is the FORMER ufc flyweight champ! same on the page for the gym.. 2003:E0:F3A:8A33:24B3:5333:DE85:9A76 (talk) 19:38, 12 November 2021 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2021
Category talk:Amendments to the United States Constitution

message: For some time I have been working on revisions to the Bricker Amendment article.  I finally posted it and have a PR at Wikipedia:Peer review/Bricker Amendment/archive1.  I'd welcome comments.  I know all those references may seem extravagant, but I'm hoping to get it as an FA and those voters want lots of footnotes.  PedanticallySpeaking 16:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bricker Amendment
Talk:Forbes State Forest

message: I just started adding content:
:The "Natural features" section is still a stub with more to come (soon).
:I added the first external link, but I'm not sure the format is correct.
:Ideally we can add a couple of images to this article; a map and a "wilderness" image (if possible).
--Doc Tropics 16:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When was it established? Also add establishment cat once found. Circeus 23:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Forbes is actually several noncontigous tracts which were acquired by the state at different times. So far I've only found info for the Roaring Run area, but I did put that in. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 05:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I just uploaded this image from the U.S. DCNR (see External link on Mainpage), but I've botched the licensing part. Any help or suggestions? --20:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to state the source.  If you got it from the DCNR website, a link to the place on the website you found it would help.  If it's truly US Government/public domain, then that'll do a lot to clarify the image status. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: image issues
Talk:James Figg

message: His birth year is given as 1684 when Charles II was still on the English throne but the article quotes a statement he was born 'in the reign of William III', which was the next but one reign and began in 1689. What was his age at death alleged to be?Cloptonson (talk) 15:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Birth year
Talk:Lightweight

message: Why isn't Pernell listed as a notable lightweight?
Kenny7602 17:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pernell Whitaker 

message: That first paragraph needs a serious rewrite. How do you flag for attention? 217.34.75.65 12:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Paragraph
Talk:Ejectment

message: I have removed the template 'inapporopriate tone', because I do not see one.  I have also added a description of the fictitious form of ejectment in English law; I hope I have done so correctly.  Peterkingiron 16:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The criticism that the article fails to deal adequately with the continuing non-fictitious use of ejectment proceedings is fully warranted.  I have made some amendments, which (I hope) deal with this better.  Peterkingiron 22:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: By the second paragraph it is no longer possible to tell who is doing what to whom. All I can tell is that somebody gave a lease to somebody, and somebody gave a lease to somebody, and then suddenly nobody is suing nobody for something, and somebody has to answer for it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.5.185 (talk) 10:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing wording 

message: I'm a reasonably educated person, though not a historian or a lawyer, and I came away from this article far more confused than when I started.
Terms like "disseisin" are thrown around with no context or definition, extensive and obscure quotes are given without explanation, and qulifying terms like "originally" and "some jurisdictions" are given with no elaboration.
this article needs to be rewritten from scratch - even a one-paragraph stub would be an improvement if it was legible to a layman.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:79E1:ABC:A201:6570:D13C:59F:587 (talk) 08:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  I can't make heads or tails of this article
Talk:Bingo (Scrabble)

message: ++Lar: t/c 15:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

message: Can we get a definition of OXYPHENBUTAZONE? And possibly a reference to it being the highest-scoring (not that I doubt it, but...)? Rigadoun 16:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How unlikely is it that 8 letters are placed in the correct positions?  Just a little!  violet/riga (t) 10:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: There's a wikipedia article on oxyphenbutazone. I'd love to know what DESHYPOTHEQUIEZ is though. --Bobyllib (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Oops, he's right. Art LaPella 19:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  definition 

message: That... that's it. That's my comment. I can't believe there was never an article on bingoing. -- Kicking222 01:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How did this article never exist before?

message: As the article says, another term for this is "bonus", but has anyone ever heard it called "a scrabble"? (I have never called it that but I have heard other people say they think they have heard it, haha) Adam Bishop 01:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other names 

message: What exactly is the reference for saying that "most of the English-speaking world" refers to the 7-tile bonus as a "bingo"?  I have never once in my life heard this definition of "bingo".  The only reference cited on the article simply states that the bonus is nicknamed a bingo.  It says nothing about the popularity of the term. 74.70.185.44 19:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference?
Talk:Austrian Littoral

message: Prior to the 1813 start date that this article currently cites, the same (or similar) areas were generally referred to as "the littoral" of the Habsburg monarchy. Is this the article to link to when discussing, say, the littoral area around Trieste in the 18th century? If so, the intro might be clarified. --Delirium (talk) 12:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  earlier naming 

message: I suggest to put the languages in the order of their presence and not the way they are listed right now, as there is no criterion that present listing is following (at least to my knowledge).Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 15:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Languages in the infobox
Talk:Cardinal Newman High School (Santa Rosa, California)

message: I am not an expert but somehow I don't think any admin is going to sum up the consensus as Delete. So I guess it's passed AfD? (Mind you I still think if it's notable, I'm a Stonyhurst man - Fooo/~/ooorth!) I can't find anything to confirm this but somehow I think it is against protocol even for the nominator simply to remove the template. So does any of the eager editors here want to toddle off and find someone who can wrap things up for us? . --Stroika 17:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The AfD 

message: The old AFD vote is at   I don't know how to change the template above to reflect the move. If someone knows how I would appreciate it. KnightLago 22:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The location of the old AFD

message: The claim about Keith Buckley is completely unsubstantiated and not cited. In addition, the link for Keith Buckley is not the same Buckley discussed in the article. Possible vandalism. (71.88.250.89 (talk) 03:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keith Buckley 

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 
Category talk:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Internodeuser

message: Please replace:
{{sockpuppet|Internodeuser}}
by
{{sockpuppeteer}}
which is a better tag. The user's talk page is also protected so I'm putting this message here instead. -- ADNghiem501 17:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I think I've done that correctly.--Commander Keane 17:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing protected [[User:Internodeuser]]
Talk:Brook lamprey

message: But they develop a suction mouth with sharp teeth which they never use .... Is it possible they've gone millions of years with a mouth they have no use for, and never evolved it away? 3¢soap3¢ 05:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I realize Im replying to myself here, but I wanted to write my thoughts.  Since the perverse development of teeth precisely when they're least useful happens only after they've reproduced (and never will again), it presumably can't affect their evolutionary fitness at all.  It could just as well be that lampreys all swim towards Halley Research Station, Antarctica after they've spawned and even though none of them will ever make it there, they were all doomed anyway, so nothing really matters.  It seems strange to humans because humans interact with other humans even after they've finished reproducing, whereas lampreys and some other fish essentially have fulfilled the purpose of their lives and have nothing else to do. —Soap— 02:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  so they never eat
Talk:Schur polynomial

message: I created the original version of this article and had been monitoring it for bad edits until about a month ago, but I am leaving the WP and am now abandoning this article to its fate.
Just wanted to provide notice that I am only responsible (in part) for the last version I edited; see User:Hillman/Archive.  I emphatically do not vouch for anything you might see in more recent versions.  I hope for the best, but I haven't verified the recent edits by an anon.  There were good reasons why I chose the notation that I used.  I caution that "prettifying" signs is a good way to turn a correct equation into an incorrect one if it is not done very carefully, so the studious reader will need to carefully check whether the current version of the article is mathematically accurate.  (I suspect this might be a good example of what I call edit creep, unfortunately.)
Good luck to all students in your search for information, regardless!---CH 17:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Students beware
Talk:Wizard Island

message: WHat is surface of the island? Could somebody put metric values as well? Luka Jačov 17:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will add those right now. Nationalparks 17:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Metric

message: Can someone verify this diff?  There was no edit summary.  Nationalparks 17:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to www.nps.gov the depth of the crater on top of wizard island should be approximately 100 ft. and not about 10 ft. as was made in the edit. --Burntnickel 19:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok.  I made the reversion and am about to leave a message for the IP editor. Nationalparks 20:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Diff

message: Article should note the small lakes on Wizard Island's west end. 50.53.252.49 (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There only seems to be one lake, and it doesn't seem to have a name,  See the USGS topo map.  Why do you think it should be mentioned?  —EncMstr (talk) 05:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: They're also called the 'prismatic pools'. The water temperature is 5 or 10 degrees higher than the rest of the lake. I don't know if there's also a lot of minerals in the water causing the color differences. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lacks reference to Emerald Pool(s)
Talk:Lee (English surname)

message: It is NOT and English name.  This name was adopted by Jewish emigres.--2605:6000:3D10:100:ECE3:C570:576F:FD8E (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lee is a name adopted by Jews 
Talk:Torlonia

message: A better, less pretentious title would be Princes Torlonia.--Wetman (talk) 11:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that Prince Torlonia is only descended from the House of Torlonia in the female-line; he is actually a Borghese. The two branches of the male-line House of Torlonia are not known as Princes Torlonia (in spite of the fact that the head of one line is Prince of Civitella-Cesi).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.18.194 (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Princes Torlonia

message: How did the family acquire a huge fortune "through administering the finances of the Vatican? Was this corruption on a grand scale?Royalcourtier (talk) 09:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corruption?
Template talk:Primates

message: Nice box! :) - UtherSRG (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Praise

message: i just saw the carnivora template and it was much more detailed. it includes the specific and gereric names too. the primates template needs to catch up. maybe ill sign in and do it im just as lazy as yall.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.40.6.221 (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be neat to expand the box like , but primate taxonomy changes frequently, so it would be a lot of work to maintain.  Anyone else watching this template agree that we should expand? – VisionHolder « talk » 08:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no inherent reason to have navigation templates at the species or family level. However, I'd prefer to have individual navboxes at somewhat manageable size, and a single navbox for the entire primate order doesn't seem manageable to me. Ucucha (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion?