lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Gara

message: pro-separatist
would it be English to write: pro-basque-separatist?
Arne List 00:41, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be awkward. ;-)  Plus, I think it's clear from context what the separatism referred to is. -- VV 07:05, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Nationalist, akin to the Nationalist Left. Separatist can be seen as a derogatory term as it's used mostly by Spanish nationalists/unionists, specially by Francoists that always used the term rojo-separatista (red-separatist), followed often to allegations to the Judeo-Masonic conspiration. --Sugaar 18:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Someone has engaged in serial verifiability tag posting without apparent reason, so bringing it to talk if s/he can shed some light. The first tag is just about self-explanatory ("by its own accounts"), so eligible to immediate removal. The second, on the Islamist Madrid attacks, that's a well known fact (like the Spanish government's dishonest management of the horrific event), check the main article, but fair enough, according to WP policies. The third is a well known fact as well, the explanation provided in the explanation line is untenable, since ETA provided notice in advance of his attack on Hipercor, and there are/were actually proceedings to determine accountability for failure by police officials to notify. The last tag is just uncalled for (what it is about exactly?). Iñaki LL (talk) 07:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Latest campaign of unexplained tags
Talk:Sexed up

message: *Wiktionary. Regardless of how "useful" the article is, it doesn't belong here. --Badharlick 15:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: From VfD

message: ....................................... of using undefined terms. The contributor says make "more attractive" the dictionary says " make it seem more significant, exciting or interesting than it originally was" : something quite different. As an aging brit, I regard it as equivalent to " tarting up " and many people might think of "fuck up" (when used to mean "spoil" ). Exaggerate seems pretty close to Andrew Gilligan's probable intention. MORAL :-    BE EXPLICIT and do not try to show off or to be too clever.
77.97.161.230 08:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This illustrates the danger 

message: the allegation was not made by the BBC. It was made by Andrew Gilligan. It was broadcast by the BBC something quite different although its critics seem to like pretending otherwise. mikeL  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.234.172 (talk) 07:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: P.S.

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources.  Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Talk:County Londonderry

message: its derry not londonderry Kturner112 (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: See previous discussions above. Valenciano (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2022 

message: Change county name to derry 2001:BB6:A62E:5300:D19E:A841:5E62:BE5A (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: See discussion above and in the archives. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2022 

message: Londonderry to Derry as Londonderry does not exist. Thanks 2A02:8084:51BF:6600:6843:DE48:31C4:A4CF (talk) 16:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done as you haven't provided reliable sources to support your request. According to all the references and the article the county of Londonderry was created from County Coleraine and parts of Tyrone and Antrim. Unlike the city references and historical record indicates there was never a County Derry other than as a colloquial naming. Please provide evidence and references to the contrary if you wish to have the article altered. Thank you. Canterbury Tail talk 17:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2023 

message: County Londonderry is not the name of this county it is just county derry .The six counties in Northern Ireland are Tyrone, Derry, Antrim ,Down , Armagh and Fermanagh. Diiie (talk) 13:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done as you have failed to provide reliable sources for this claim. You claim goes against the current reliable sources and government documentation for the creation of the county. If you wish to alter it you will need reliable sources that shows the current ones to be incorrect. Canterbury Tail talk 13:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

text: WP:DERRY 212.3.150.52 (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2023 

message: Freederry 2A01:B340:66:7C34:5C8:4B04:D6D1:8266 (talk) 23:42, 12 November 2023 (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. Liu1126 (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2023
Talk:List of open-source search engines

message: For the record, the "use of" the original version of List of open-source search engines was as a (mutable) resource for someone in a position choose from among the group.  To my knowledge, no such resource had previously existed, and I reckon shall not exist, at least not here(?).  Frankly, I haven't read all the meta-Wiki stuff, so I wouldn't know if it violoated the spirit of the Wikipedia.
I do agree that "Open-source search engine" probably doesn't merit its own article, as it's pretty well defined by its constituent terms and respective articles.
Fleminra 01:55, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Talk:Fallacy of division

message: "One might also reason that, because the apple is not poisonous none of its constituents are. Again one would be committing the fallacy of division. Apple pips contain a form of cyanide."
Might one not safely reason, however, that none of the constituents of an apple that one actually EATS is poisonous?!
No. When I swallow a few apple seeds, it's harmless -- the amount of cyanide is so tiny that its effect is not noticable. But cyanide is, of course, poisonous in larger quantities. -- DavidCary 16:29, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Apples and pips

message: The example 'Functioning brains think' is itself the conclusion of a fallacy of division! It is primarily human beings, with a functioning brain, who think. But it does not follow from this that functioning brains think. 
The example must be rewritten.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mircion (talk • contribs) 12:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong example 

message: I believe that Fallacy of division (and fallacy of composition) is actually a formal fallacy, yet it is listed as informal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy . In this fallacy, the premises are true, but the conclusion is not. Reference: https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-content/wi-phi/critical-thinking/v/formal-informal-fallacy StojadinovicP (talk) 11:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Informal or formal fallacy?
Talk:Rachel Félix

message: Very similar to the site cited below: "economy of gesture, etc." Danny 02:51, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Was she truly a courtesan, a prostitute? Did she charge money for sex, or did she simply have lovers? She has this category. This should be clarified. --85.226.44.74 (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing in the article support that she was a prostitute. It does not matter how many relationships or lovers, longterm lovers or short-term lovers she had; the definition to be a prostitute, is to have sex in exhange for money. --85.226.44.19 (talk) 13:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Courtesan? 

message: What was the cause of her death? How did a statue labelled "Mlle. Rachel" in Berlin survive National Socialism?96.248.101.32 (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Queries
Talk:The Big Guy and Rusty the Boy Robot

message: There should probably be a link to Animated series somewhere on this page, not sure where however.
Also I think there should be a spoiler warning RE: the discussion of episode contents
I propose changing this page to "Big Guy and Rusty the Boy Robot (TV series)" and transferring the comic book information to a new page "Big Guy and Rusty the Boy Robot (comics)" If this change is to be made, I am unsure of the best way to handle the fact that numerous other pages currently link to this page Mainehaven 13:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it.  Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed.  I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy.  In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 04:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  YouTube links 

message: This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject.  If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class.  The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject.  Comics-awb (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

message: As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T  14:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: C-Class rated for Comics Project

message: This article claims that Big Guy and Rusty made appearance in the last Sin City book.  Which book?  Hell and Back?  And in what context did they appear?JFP (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sin City? 
Talk:John Abbott

message: This should be moved to Sir John Abbott Dowew 14:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is under wikistyle honorifics are generally not used in article titles. A redirect exists if anyone types in the "Sir". 23skidoo 19:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sir John Abbott 

message: Sir John Abbott's page on wikiquote says that he is the cousin of Bud Abbott of Abbott and Costello.  Does anyone know if there is any truth to this?  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bud Abbott? 

message: Abbott is properly styled as "The Honourable" and not as "The Right Honourable". This is confirmed on his official Parliament of Canada biography page. Some Canadian PMs (Mackenzie, Abbott, and Bowell) were not entitled to the style of "The Right Honourable", and the explanation is given at Talk:Mackenzie_Bowell#Why_some_Canadian_PMs_are_not_styled_Right_Honourable. -- Blairall (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why he is not styled as "The Right Honourable" 

message: The discussion at infobox_person template page is that the rules for biographical templates apply to all biographical templates and they do not have to be litigated at all 35 separate biographical templates. The rules generated there apply to all 35 biographical templates. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Alma_mater vs Education

message: A discussion is taking place as to whether the redirect JohnAbbott should be deleted, kept, or retargeted. It will be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 23#JohnAbbott until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.  1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "JohnAbbott" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:United States/Archive 2

message: Changed world's third largest country (land area) to world's third largest country (total area).  The US is actually the fourth largest in land area (PR of China is slightly larger in land area but has less water area).
----
Removed the words overcome and power because even the US DoD projects power. It is difficult to claim has power without the consent of all parties. (Read Rights of Man) However, a technology is something through which a competitive advantage is obtained. Thus the substitution for power.
169.207.86.78 07:58, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: I've blocked the vandal's IP address for about 2 minutes as a warning. I cannot block permamently as its an AOL addy. As this guy seems to like vandalizing this page, I'm going to protect it the next time that happens. WhisperToMe 00:44, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism
Wikipedia talk:List of encyclopedia topics/(10)

message: What is the purpose of this page? RedWolf 05:25, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
:See Wikipedia:List of encyclopedia topics, and Wikipedia talk:List of encyclopedia topics.  Basically it's to highlight gaps in the encyclopedia, and to encourage the creation of useful redirects.  fabiform | talk 05:38, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Talk:Uwe Johnson

message: I've mostly translated this. I've marked in red the few passages I either couldn't translate or where I think my translation is quite likely wrong. It still has no narrative thread. If someone wants to take on finishing this up, it's all yours. You might also find it useful to look at the German-language article. -- Jmabel 07:39, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I took it further myself, in a more patient mood, and dealt with everything except one paragraph that still throws me. It's not actively bad as it stands but... he's a writer, and there is nothing here to indicate what he wrote about, what his ideas were, or (other than being award-winning) why anyone would want to read him. -- Jmabel 17:43, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Talk:USS Cole bombing

message: This article notes that "Around 400 to 700 pounds (180 to 320 kg) of explosive were used" and points to reference 7 for that claim. Reference 7 is Whitaker, Brian (
). "Bomb type and tactics point to al-Qaida". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 11 July 2009. That article notes that 1,000 lbs of explosive were used for a bombing of UN headquarters in Iraq, but never mentions the amount/size of the explosive used in the Cole attack. The only reference is later in the article where they note "the explosive used against the UN building was C4, which has no non-military uses. C4 was used in al-Qaida's attack on the USS Cole in Aden harbour, Yemen, three years ago." Wondamike7 (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: - wolf 21:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amount of explosives used -- disagreement between Wiki article and cited reference
Talk:Knossos

message: "The city of Knossos remained important through the classical and Roman periods, but in 1450 BC the volcano Santorini, a hundred kilometres away, blew its top in one of the biggest eruptions in recorded history. A tidal wave swept over Knossos, which was then right on the Cretan Coast, and the death blow to the Minoans was compounded by a devastating fire, scorch marks from which can still be seen on alabaster and gypsum blocks throughout the ruins."
I removed this. Too little. Marinatos had a great theory there. Now, however, the micro-evidence points to a date somewhat earlier than 1450. You can strain it down to the middle of the 16th at absolute latest but that still gives you gap. That there was a terrible destruction  carrying away most of the settlements, which were coastal, with their fleets and probably the majority of their population, is fairly certain. When is another matter. Whether it is represented by any of the destructions at Knossos is still another matter. Knossos is not on the shore, you know. It is up on a height away from the shore. It is possible the destruction opened the region to being overrun by Mycenaean Greeks. Whether the Minoans recovered, how long it took, how, are all open questions. Since this article is about mainly Knossos rather than the destiny and details of the civilization as a whole, I am removing it from here. Perhaps revised it could go under Minoan civilization. I would suggest some ideas from different people need to be presented. Right now it is unreferenced, although I am sure you could pull up something by Marinatos. It would not be current, however. Ciao.Dave (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: last I heard, dendrochronology put the eruption at 1628 BC, but some think they can get closer by a year or two. It seems to have taken a few centuries for life at Cnossos to disappear completely. Fuficius Fango (talk) 12:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: The destruction by explosion of Thera

message: We move from the Neolithic period to the Minoan palatial period. The period from 3.200 BC up to 2.000 BC is forgotten. We should include "Early Bronze Age". Historyandsciencelearn (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Minoan and Pre Minoan Bronze Age
Talk:Terry A. Anderson

message: https://apnews.com/article/c266353298c04dbf874ab4d94536f2b3 Skamiikaze (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  He has died
Talk:Albert II of Germany

message: Why is he called that? The article does not make it clear. 2A00:23C5:E0A0:8300:34B7:61F0:4224:182A (talk) 08:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Magnaminious

message: — Assignment last updated by Nickthill10 (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: The Middle Ages
Talk:German cuisine

message: "Regulations are even stricter than those for bottled water (see Trinkwasserverordnung)." is not correct. The TrinkwV "Gesundheitsamt" is different to the Mineral- und TafelwasserVO. The limits of certain Elements in each water are different. Not only a difference for the responsibility "Lebensmittelbehörde" or "Gesundheitsamt" exists, but also the place where the samples are taken (Quellort or Wasseraubereitungsanlage / spring/well place or Waterpreperation feed) and how much time between taking the sample and analysing it can there be. Of course, all the waterqualitys are exellent. It depends on the parameters which one is better for which use. Mineralwasser for example is allowed a tick to be more radioactive than Trinkwasser and Trinkwasser is allowed to have a tick more heavy metal than Mineralwaaser. A tick means a very little bit. In some points one of the "Verordnungen" is a little stricter than the other.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.212.210.34 (talk) 20:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drinking water 

message: Were there absolutely no non-AI generated images of hotdogs available? Not even: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hot_Dog_in_Berlin.jpg 
Which is already in use on the page about Hot Dogs in general, with the bonus of it actually being from Germany.
On top of using an AI image, then a caption saying it's an "Early Picture"? From when? Early makes it sound like it should be one of the first hotdogs photographed around the invention/mass production of the camera, not some rubbish dreamt up by a computer in March 2023.
Simply put it should just be a normal picture of a preferably German hot dog, how is there no rule for this kind of thing? 193.32.248.203 (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: P.s. tried editing it, not in revision history as having been undone as it doesn't seem to be going through at all 193.32.248.203 (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  AI image for an "Early picture of a hot dog"?!
Talk:Nonviolence

message: It’s sloppy and may need deletion or a rewrite into three or four sentences. Needs to be appropriately sourced. 2600:100C:B037:E65A:D07:3D09:CF56:D1D3 (talk) 04:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fourth paragraph of lead section 

message: A massive complete deletion of the lead section is vandalism and is not tolerated at Wikipedia.  Offenders may get blocked. Rjensen (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism warning
Talk:Taunus

message: Auto discussion moved to Talk:Ford Taunus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RivGuySC (talk • contribs) 17:11, 5 July 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Von mir aus gerne. Mentatus 06:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Der Taunus ist ein in Hessen und Rheinland-Pfalz liegendes Mittelgebirge ...
The Taunus is a mountain range in Hesse, Germany, ...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.130.153.43 (talk) 09:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Widerspruch zwischen deutscher und englischer Version
Talk:Director

message: Why do we need separate pages for film director, television director, 
theatre director, and choral director? Anthony DiPierro 14:45, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Arts

message: subject item should be added and explained.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.66.64.248 (talk) 16:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sitting director, alternate director