lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:4th Fleet (Imperial Japanese Navy)

message: The article says (in several places) that the Fourth Fleet was disbanded in 1905 and reconsistuted in 1937.  However, it also describes a "Fourth Fleet Incident" in 1935.  Either the 1937 date is wrong, or there was another fourth fleet in existance in between 1905 and 1937.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.220.37 (talk) 21:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the Japanese Wikipedia article on the said 'Fourth Fleet Incident', the 'Fourth Fleet' in this case was formed ad hoc in September 1935 specifically for the purpose of naval exercise. The CO of this 'fleet' was VADM Matsushita Hajime but you wouldn't find anything about his career as the commanding officer of the Fourth Fleet. Apparently the Imperial Japanese Navy themselves didn't count this one as a real formation. 222.109.32.222 (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  chronology problems 

message: This is described as being kept a secret, but the Western newspapers seem to have got a very prompt and reasonably accurate description - the next day, 27 September, the Liverpool Echo (BNA) gave a very precise death toll (one dead, ten injured, 52 missing) and named several ships including highlighting the damage to Hatsuyuki & Yugiri. Some of this is credited to an official communique via Reuters, which suggests that there was certainly no particular attempt to keep it all secret. 
Was it perhaps that the structural deficiencies uncovered afterwards were kept secret? Or was it suppressed in the domestic media but they were more relaxed about overseas reports? Andrew Gray (talk) 18:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fourth Fleet Incident
Talk:Steven A. Vasilev

message: I'm still not sure where I am supposed to be putting this article so that it is not flagged.  IT is a bio article which should be under living people, surgeons and physicians.  The title was also edited beyond my control so...not sure what to do about it not matching the current version.  This talk page is attached to the currently posted article. 
I have also added back the correct titles which were stripped for no reason. 
If you could assist by commenting what I have to do to put this in the correct category that would be appreciated. 
Thanks. 
Svasilev 00:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Christian Episcopal Church

message: Apart from the Traditional Anglican Communion, the article should really consider verifying whether groups within the Christian Episcopal Church have ever sought a similar canonical structure to the proposed personal ordinariates. ADM (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk:Personal Ordinariate

message: There are no sources that this is a legitimate organization. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could be a scam 

message: 'Its bishops are not in apostolic succession, as the Anglican Communion from which it broke also ceased to maintain apostolic succession shortly after the death of King Henry VIII.'  This is the Roman Catholic position, but do the members of the CE Church (and the Anglican Communion) agree? --2607:FEA8:D5DF:F945:A92D:5AD9:2E72:80FA (talk) 02:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  apostolic succession
Category talk:Islands of the San Francisco Bay Area

message: This seems to be a superset of Category:Islands of San Francisco Bay.  Should one or the other be deleted?  I left a note on  Cholga's talk page. Cxbrx 00:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems useful to distinguish bay islands from ocean and river islands. Let's keep both categories. --Stepheng3 (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Adare Friary

message: Currently the article says "As part of the Tudor suppression of Irish Monasteries at the end of the 16th century, the Augustinians were driven out of Adare and had moved to Limerick City by 1633." Yet the Dictionary of National Biography Volume XVI, page 320–327 says "A detachment crossed the Shannon, and Bunratty was burned by its garrison, though it had taken the confederate Catholics much pains to win. 'We stormed and burned the abbey of Adare, held by the rebels, where four friars were burned and three took prisoners'(Rushworth, vii. 788.)." which suggests that in 1646 there were some friars in residence at the Abby over one hundred years the Tudor suppression of Irish Monasteries. I suggest that the article needs verification. --PBS (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  1640s 

message: I think that information from St Nicholas' National School should be incorporated into this article. The school itself is probably not notable enough for its own article, but if included in this article, it would convey information about the modern usage of the friary, which is absent from this article. Waistlesselk (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge Suggestion
Talk:Tennenbaum's theorem

message: Added name and date for Stanley Tennebaum re: the theorem with his name.
Added a link to an online paper by R. W. Kaye about the theorem; I couldn't find any non-online source so I elected for 'External Links' rather than 'References'.
Kaye has written about models of Peano Arithmetic so I feel this is a legitimate link to include, but I defer to other editors if there is a preferred way to do so.  Thanks!  Zero sharp 06:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kaye's list of publications on his website doesn't claim this paper was published anywhere. Since it's unpublished, I think it's more appropriate to put it in the external links section than the references section. It certainly is a relevant link to include. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The URL lacked the essential extension '.pdf' which I have added.  At the same time I removed the link to Richard Kaye's Wikipedia page: they are not the same person.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.19.111 (talk) 11:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who's Tennenbaum?
Talk:Winzapper

message: It seems noteworthy to me. The sources are maybe not stellar--but adaquate  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.72.86.223 (talk) 05:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

message: #It is a freeware product, which makes the motivation for spam questionable;
#It has been the subject of numerous articles in IT publications;
#It is the only software out there to my knowledge which performs the function of selective security log event deletion, which is an important consideration in IT security.
Stayman Apple 00:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The burden of proof is on the author to provide reliable sources to prove that the subject of the article is notable enough by Wikipedia standards for inclusion. Also, please do not remove WP:SPEEDY templates on articles that you yourself have created. shoy 00:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I request that it go through the full AfD process. Stayman Apple 01:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Objections to "spam" designation"
Talk:List of colleges and universities in Vermont

message: Records of the fraternity Delta Psi note an early chapter at Burlington College.  Active from 1849-1854, the standard reference for fraternities and sororities suggests this school closed in 1881.  Where was it?  Vermont?  Or elsewhere?
Note that this first iteration of a Burlington College had nothing to do with the 1972 establishment of an identically-named school, Burlington College which has also since closed. (2016)
This was the extent of the information I found. An editor with better information should address this.  Jax MN (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: We've since discovered that the earlier Burlington College was in Burlington, New Jersey. It is briefly noted in the biography article about its founder, George Washington Doane, and a redirect to that school links to that founder's article. I placed a request to add this to the list of New Jersey colleges under that name, once someone finds more information. Early preparatory school, it seems. Jax MN (talk) 18:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burlington College (1846-1881)
Talk:History of Darfur

message: Why oh why isn't this in the Darfur article? 66.160.174.167 01:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Summary style - BanyanTree 01:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  in Darfur article? 

message: I'm not certain as to how true the comment that the Kitab Dali legal code is still preserved. From the best I can tell, the source is the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, so what was true almost a century ago may not still hold true today, especially with the advent of independence.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zapallon (talk • contribs) 12:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dali's Book still in use? 
Talk:St Thomas' Anglican Church, North Sydney

message: The last paragraph under "History" reads: "St Thomas' has always stood as a prominent beacon of Christianity in the once quiet but now bustling North Sydney. There have been many ministers serve at St Thomas' over its 157 year history."
I think the first sentence is taken directly from the church's website. Also, I think it is not very encyclopaedic in its language, and also in its contents (for instance, who says that the church has always been a beacon of Christianity?). I suggest that it be removed, or replaced if someone can produce a more suitable form of words. 
If I wanted to quibble, I'd say that the second sentence is so obvious as to be hardly worth saying – clearly if a church has been functioning for over 150 years there must have been many clergy/ministers who have served there. A list of rectors might be of interest, if one can be obtained. Meanwhile I have edited it slightly. Ondewelle (talk) 19:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, go ahead and make changes. 99of9 (talk) 00:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In the absence of any other comments, I have removed this paragraph. Ondewelle (talk) 07:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last paragraph under "History". 
Talk:The Fellowship (Australia)

message: This is not a Anglican movement. If I am mistaken say so. -- SECisek 17:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In earlier days the Fellowship had infiltrated some Melbourne Anglican churches, including St. Hillary's Kew. They have since withdrawn and are almost exclusively at Trinity Presbyterian. 220.253.0.19 (talk) 06:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I note your reversion of my edit that removed the link to the Anglican Church in Australia.  I accept your action and acknowledge my bias an Anglican. I am nevertheless uncomfortable that just because some members of the Fellowship formerly attended St Hilary's Kew (and presumably other similar low church Anglican denominations) a link to the entire Anglican Church in Australia is, peradventure, tenuous.  On the other hand, it at least implies that the Fellowship found the tenets of Anglicanism distasteful.  Thank you for the respectful and constructive manner in which you have approached this, and acknowledging that my action was in good faith, as is yours.  Adamm (talk) 03:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is true that the current link to the Anglican Church in Australia is weak. On the flip side, members of the Anglican Church were warned in an official letter a couple of years ago to beware of the group (mentioned in one of the articles from The Age). I think it qualifies when you combine that with the historical link (the group had apparently existed within the Anglican Church for 60 years, from its foundation in the 1930s until the mid-1990s). Blarneytherinosaur gabby? 02:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Presbyterian 

message: Hello all, please see Talk:The Family (Christian political organization)#The Family vs. The Fellowship; the proposal I've made would not involve changing this article, but would require The Fellowship to be made into a disambiguation page. Thanks in advance for any comments. GlassCobra 16:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks pretty straightforward to me. Thanks for the notice. Blarneytherinosaur gabby? 13:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming discussion at [[Talk:The Family (Christian political organization)]]
Talk:Profoundemonium

message: I am removing the review which has been inexplicably added to the article, in the article description of all places. I can't find the user who added this. This clearly doesn't comply with WP policies, if you want to show some of the appreciation this fantastic record received create a properly cited Reception section. If it is your own review, add it Metal-Archives or similiar, as it is well-written, but does not have a place here.Joncheetham88 (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Unexplained review
Talk:Romi Dames

message: Trivia sections do not belong in Wikipedia articles.  -YeLLeY511 01:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia sections 
Talk:HistoryLink

message: A co-founder and powerhouse behind HistoryLink, Walt Crowley passed away September 21, 2007.  rewinn 01:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: R.I.P. Walt Crowley

message: Assessed to start class. Has good bones, but would benefit from more expansion.Carmelator (talk) 23:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Quality
Talk:Clifton Heights, St. Louis

message: Please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject St. Louis/articles to find out how to improve this page.  DaronDierkes (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Do List 
Category talk:Texas border disputes

message: This really ought to be updated with this but I do not know how to do that.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standoff_at_Eagle_Pass  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:F100:A100:C4E8:6FFB:27AF:625 (talk) 12:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Quicksand, Kentucky

message: This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class because it uses the Category:Kentucky stub on the article page.
This is dumb it doesn't even help!!!!!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.171.116.108 (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Bennett Elementary School

message: *I'm the nominator, so no recommendation, just a note.  My main point was not that people worked hard on the Bennett article, or that the admin who whacked it has left in a huff. So please don't misstate my argument by focusing on those items.  (Also, respectfully, I would suggest that anyone who characterizes it as falling afoul of WP:NOT#DIR has not read the article.)  Make no mistake: My main point was that this is information that is worthy of being in the Wikipedia.  I reviewed the notability guidelines, and find that they have no provision for entities that play a vital role in a community, but fail to be mentioned regularly in external press reports.  This is a failure of the notability guidelines.  In the real world, outside the WP notability guidelines, it's hard to argue that elementary schools are per se non-notable; they are the focus of a great deal of effort on the part of parents, school administrators, school boards, national politicians, and so forth.  They employ a tremendous number of people nationally and, of course, millions of students attend them.  Enormous amounts of money are spent on them locally, and billions of federal dollars are devoted to them as well.  They are the centers of the communities in which they sit. But unless a teacher seduces a student or, God forbid, there's a shooting there, they are unlikely to have external press coverage individually.  But if something newsworthy does happen at an elementary school you know as well as I that many folks, including reporters, would first go searching for information about the school in the Wikipedia. Thmoore 01:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Talk:KLTD

message: The file :File:KLTD 101.7.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Non-free former logo being used in a :WP:DECORATIVE manner in a gallery of former logos in :KLTD#Previous logos which fails :WP:NFCC#8 and :WP:NFG. Non-free former logos can be used as long as their use complies with :WP:NFC#cite_note-4 and this almost always means the logo itself about the logo and the associated change in brandling that led to its replacement is the subject of sourced critical commentary. Simply adding the logo to "show" what it looks like is not considered sufficient to satisfy :WP:NFC#CS, except in cases where the logo is being used for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of an article about the organization the logo represents.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on .
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:   [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|Proposed deletion]] of [[:File:KLTD 101.7.png]]
Talk:RPK-2 Vyuga

message: "boosted by a choice of mechanisms"? What sort of "boost"? What sort of "mechanisms"? Some clarity would be appreciated...  TREKphiler hit me ♠  05:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pro choice

message: Victor class submarine gives a designation "Type 84RN". I can find no reference to this on Google (though I did not look deeply). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "Type 84RN"?

message: So on surface vessels, the missile has to be launched into the water, so it can ignite, then fly out of the water, over the sea, and then back into the water again to attack the submarine? AnnaGoFast (talk) 00:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right, truly a very odd launch method. It is launched like a torpedo and after moving away from the ship it emerges from the water. --Seraph-RX (talk) 05:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surface vessels 

message: This is still a useless article, lacking in any helpful description or detail regarding the mode of operation or otherwise. We are left to decipher a Russian-annotated drawing (which is unclear as to what is happening based on the imagery itself) and which has a caption helpfully written in Russian.
Recommend for speedy deletion if this cannot be improved. 2A00:23C7:3131:FE01:E1D9:963A:495D:15E0 (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion
Talk:Griffin PowerMate

message: The PowerMate had an appearance as a prop in the movie The Island and wasn't there some kind of software that allows two PowerMates to act as the knobs on a virtual Etch-A-Sketch?  This article could use mentions of both, through I'm not certain how to add The Island reference.  A single item trivia section?
Issues with this article:
1) When looking on Amazon.com there are 3 different model numbers of PowerMate plus one with no model number mentioned.  There is no mention of differences here or on the Griffin site. We can "assume" that there is just one PowerMate and the model numbers represent newer versions but we can't be sure what the latest version is.  The Griffin site product page has a drop down label SKU and it reveals this product number: NA16029.  I suggest that someone knowledgeable about the differences add a section to the main article.
2) There are features claimed that reviewers on Amazon complain about being absent.  This would call for a citation on the Griffin site to clarify.  The product page on the Griffin site has very little information and does not clarify anything. I suggest that someone knowledgeable about the product verify the features and specify which models and driver versions support the feature and add this to the main article.
3) The link and the footnote have been updated to lead to the appropriate Griffin product page but that page still has less information than this article.
Arbalest Mike (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Talk:X-Patent

message: It seems odd that they'd release 3/4ths of them, but not all of them. 74.78.127.28 (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why aren't all of the recovered X-patents online? 
Talk:Bruce Pelz

message: The tarot deck "grew to include four non-standard cards" — isn't it at least six? There's a new court card (Princess or something) in each suit, and two new major arcana (Separation and, um, I forget).  —Tamfang (talk) 08:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  the Fantasy Showcase Tarot 

message: :
Fred did eventually drop out, but (I think) his string was more than twice as long as Bruce's.  I'll ask around for the numbers. —Tamfang (talk) 08:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Karl Lembke tells me, "The last Fred Patten zine seems to be disty 2280, Jan 22, 2009. And indeed, that's the zine where he announces he's quitting APA-L." —Tamfang (talk) 02:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  APA-L
Talk:A General History of the Pyrates

message: I think this article needs to be either rewritten, or at least heavily edited. The main problem with it is that while it is stated at the beginning that the identity of the author hasn't been established for certain, the whole article from the Themes section onwards has been written under the assumption that the author is Daniel Defoe. The constant references to Defoe, at the very least, need to be removed if there is no general consensus that he is indeed the author.
I also think that in its current state, the article is too long and unnecessarily detailed; from the Themes section onwards, it is little more than a summary of the contents of the book, and since there are very few references to sources other than A General History of Pyrates itself, some of the more interpretative statements (the Fact and Fiction section in particular) sound dangerously like original research. I would suggest trimming down the article with less paraphrasing of the source text and by sticking to established and leaving out speculation. 62.78.230.2 (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored the article to the version befor May this year when a large amount of original research was added. Thanks for spotting that issue! Although the current text is imperfect, what was added was compley synthesis and primary research - and under WP rules can be removed. Thanks again! --Errant (chat!) 10:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs rewriting 

message: My name shehbaj pate
My father mahammad bhai patel Shehbaj patel (talk) 05:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biodata 

message: I'd like to see a section added pointing out that quite a bit of what is written in the book is likely fiction. Various statements contradict trusted primary sources from the period including newspaper articles and court documents. It's also next to impossible that he would have had a way to know specific dialogue between pirates like Blackbeard's speech before his last battle or the exchange between Anne Bonny and Jack Rackham. For example, Rackham was hanged and Anne Bonny disappeared so who conveyed what was said? Furthermore, they were imprisoned so, if it was said, that would mean the guards allowed a man and woman to meet and talk. There is no way that would have been allowed. Concerning Blackbeard, he was killed during the battle and the surviving crew was arrested, tried, and executed. There is no mention of any of them testifying to what he said nor is there any documentation from Maynard that describes that. 
These are just two examples but there are many more and it's important to discuss this. This is a common source document but it should be viewed with a certain amount of suspicion and ideally cross referenced against other documents if possible. ThePiratesPort (talk) 12:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Factual Accuracy" section