lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Vexillological symbol

message: I have removed the following self reference from the article - it needs to be found a more suitable home:
Here on Wikipedia, you can find the Image:FIAV_xx.png image you need by giving the dot values as follows:
 32      	 16      	  8 
  4 	  2 	  1 
Simply add the values to obtain the image code. The example above is 32+16+8+4+2+1 = 63.  For values less than ten, put in a leading zero.
Could we get someone in the know to exlain the values of those dots? Upper right means what? Lower right means what? I have no clue what top vs. bottom dots means.
ed g2s • talk 21:09, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: The state flag article says:
:There are two separate meanings for the term of state flag in vexillology; either the flag of the government of a sovereign state, or the flag of an individual subnational state.
:A state flag is a variant of a national flag (or occasionally a completely different design) specifically designated and restricted by law or custom (theoretically or actually) to use by a country's government or its agencies. For this reason they are sometimes referred to as government flags. In many countries the state flag and the civil flag (as flown by the general public) are identical, but in other countries...the state flag is a more complex version of the national flag, often featuring the national coat of arms or some other emblem as part of the design.
The civil flag article says:
:A civil flag is a version of the national flag that is flown by civilians on nongovernmental installations or craft.
It's clear from the state flag article that the term "state flag" can apply to flags of a subnational state. For example, the flag of the state of Illinois is a state flag. Subnational states are considered first-level administrative divisions.
Administrative divisions beyond the first-level often also have flags. For example, most larger cities have flags. As another example, Illinois is divided into counties, counties are divided into townships, and there are a variety of administrative divisions in Illinois, which can cross township and county boundaries, such as municipalities (cities, villages, and incorporated towns in the case of Illinois.) Each of these may have it's own flag.
Are these also considered state and/or civil flags? Is the flag of Chicago a state and/or civil flag, or is it something else? Squideshi (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flags of Administrative Divisions Beyond the First-Level 

message: This page is called "Vexillological symbol" which I feel should be changed on two counts. One, I believe it should be plural since it's not about a single symbol but a set. Two, it is referred to as FIS for "Flag information symbols" in the source materials. So I propose to move the page to Flag information symbols if there's consensus.  Not A  Witty Fish   15:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Cute 2.147.98.54 (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

text: 3 2.147.98.54 (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seeking consensus for page move to "Flag information symbols"
Talk:List of school districts in Manitoba

message: Sorry, didn't realize there was size restrictions on a per-page basis. No problem. As I mentioned in the last edit, I've snagged the data, and will be putting it up again in different divisional pages listing in Catagories as appropriate. Weaponofmassinstruction 00:38, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the way out 

message: The redirect Walter Whyte School has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 00:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Walter Whyte School]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Sunday Night Sex Show

message: These are not the same show. It's incorrect to say that the Sunday Night Sex Show "airs as" Talk Sex with Sue. The Oxygen network airs both of them, so maybe it would be more appropriate to say that Talk Sex with Sue is the "American version" of the show. Oxygen shows reruns of the Sunday Night Sex Show, and then Talk Sex with Sue is shown live on a different date/time.
:How is it different, I watched the vids of "Talk Sex" on Oxygens web site and its the same show as Sunday Night, the same graphics, callers from Canada and it says the name "Sunday Night Sex Show" on the monitor behind Sure. So how is it a different show? 74.109.62.238 04:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sunday Night Sex Show vs. Talk Sex with Sue 

message: — Assignment last updated by Nyxtingale (talk) 04:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: History of Sexuality
Talk:Canopy Group

message: I removed the descriptions of the companies because they seemed largely uninformative and POV. If anyone thinks that those were useful, here\'s the old revision. Please don\'t just revert, since that\'ll remove a lot of formatting changes. [ alerante | “” 21:43, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Company descriptions

message: I removed the section on the Val Kreidel Suicide because iit A) comes from a blog at hark the herald and fails WP:RS B)  it goes into \"theories\" about why someone committed suicide and C) it\'s not notable to the Canopy Portfolio since it is clearly D) a private family matter and E) out of respect for the privacy of the family and their feelings about the matter. 207.58.145.101 22:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Daily Herald seems to meet WP:RS, as it's a newspaper, not a blog, and it's reporting facts. I've removed most of the theories, and I would like to point out that the suicides are rather relevant to the company. Points D and E make no sense - Surely we should remove the accounts of murderers, for the well-being of the victim's families? HawkerTyphoon 22:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The information on the Penrose suicide doesn't really make sense to me. It seems to claim that he killed himself because of actions taken by Kreidel -- when, just a couple sentences earlier, the same section makes plain that Kreidel had killed herself nine months prior. This sounds like a conspiracy theory. The juxtaposition of the two events also seems to defame Kreidel's character somewhat. 64.95.97.17 20:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you may have confused the dates, it said Penrose killed himself in Dec. 2004, Kreidel in March 2005.  So there is no temporal issue there.  I agree that the terminology did imply some cause and effect that has not been fully substantiated, but I do feel that they are relevant given that those events took place during a major shake-up that has left Canopy Group a very different operation than it was before.  If they get put back, they should at least be described chronologically to avoid the confusion. Outtascope 00:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of suicide theories
Talk:EMC TA

message: I think the following is seriously misleading:
:The TAs were unique in that they were the only small, lightweight streamliner motive power to be truly separate locomotives. It shared this trait with the roughly contemporary EA, E1 and E2, all built in 1937, but they were all full-size locomotives intended to pull much heavier trains, while the TAs were pocket-sized, styled to match the short, lightweight trains they hauled. 1937 was very much the year that the passenger diesel locomotive evolved from the integrated streamliner. Future locomotives would follow the direction taken by the EA, E1 and E2, full-size locomotives to pull lightweight but full-size passenger cars, and thus the TA was destined to be a unique offshoot from the evolutionary path taken, but it nonetheless shows that the concept of a separate locomotive had finally and fairly decisively taken hold.
It's true that the TAs had less horsepower than than the E series -- they had one 16 cylinder Winton 201A versus two 12 cylinder 201As -- 1,000 horsepower versus 1,800. They were also geared much slower and weighed 76% of the EA's 300,000 pounds.  But, they were only 15% shorter and were the same height and width. They are, in fact, 10 feet longer than the FT, which shared the same power train. So, far from being an offshoot, they were in the direct line of the FT.  Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)  14:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is misleading.  Separate locomotives had been pulling lightweight streamliners since 1936 (M-10002 and up, Denver Zephyr locos).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.208.11.42 (talk) 13:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading?
Talk:Hell on Wheels

message: The article's  content simply wasn't supported by the source I added to the references (see edit history too please). I've updated the text to reflect that Bowles related, rather than coined, the phrase, but I don't see enough there to establish that this was indeed the first usage of the term. iMeowbot~Mw 23:00, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Mace (spice)

message: Merge with Nutmeg, which covers both spices?  -- Kaszeta 21:52, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I do feel the Nutmeg article has become a little too broad, BUT I think Mace should be added as a section, e.g. Nutmeg butter.User-duck (talk) 01:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Witness argument

message: In general, there are oodles of witness accounts of God.  We can hardly fairly select from them all, though it seems we ought to select a few as well as giving an overview.  The article should give a an overview of all historic reports, and then focus on current reports (last hundred years, this year, etc.) as being most accessible and verifiable.  Either that or simply stay out of the business of telling specific reports and just talk about the argument.  Anyone else have ideas?  Tom Haws 21:44, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
Since those making such witness accounts could either be intentionally making them up to gain attention/publicity, have mental problems, or have simply hallucinated them due to drugs or alcohol, we need to make it clear that these factors may explain at least some accounts. We should also describe the difficulty in proving that such witnesses did indeed occur (i.e. how does one prove one talked to god?). 
If we are going to list supposed witness accounts then we should stick to accounts that have some significant following, as in at least a significant number of people believed this person. We also must not take any position as to the truth of any such accounts but we can present arguments from believers in them as to why the believe them to be true. -Cab88 09:52, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: How to fix

message: This seems to overlap with argument from religious experience, only specifying the nature of the experience to witnessing God. Since this article lacks sources, it would make sense to merge it into the other one, which is a bit more mature. Vesal (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Very much so. I see absolutlely no distinction between these two arguments whatsoever. They both essentially state, as the basis of their argument, that "God exists because people have seen him". There should only be one article on this. And we haven't seen any objections. I'll merge this soon.122.106.160.244 (talk) 02:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll do the merge now. ItsZippy (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge
Talk:Keffiyeh

message: Keffiyeh is a head covering that belongs to the Iraqis since the time of the Sumerians. You do not have the right to change the facts and attribute them to countries such as Saudi Arabia and other countries. 93.191.113.66 (talk) 13:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Take your culture warring somewhere else. It does not belong here on Wikipedia. 17:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keffiyeh belongs to the Iraqis 

message: Can someone please verify this edit and the previous as well? --Karim  talk to me :)..! 16:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: are they related to to added information? --Karim  talk to me :)..! 13:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  False citations?  

message: On 12 December 2023  added at the beginning of the Palestinian national symbol section "This section duplicates the scope of other articles, specifically Palestinian keffiyeh. Please discuss this issue and help introduce a summary style to the section by replacing the section with a link and a summary or by splitting the content into a new article.". About a minute later at Talk:Palestinian keffiyeh#Duplication)  added "Section Keffiyeh#Palestinian national symbol duplicates Palestinian keffiyeh. Thus, the former should be merged in the latter. A summary could be left behind, in summary style.". 
In March at Talk:Palestinian keffiyeh#Duplication)  replied "I think this article should be merged with the main Keffiyeh article. as this article describes the same pieace of clothing but is only referencing its significance in Palestinian culture, it does not need its own article and should be part of the main article". 
There doesn't appear to have been any discussion here. Mcljlm (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't duplicate the discussion about the duplication of content; kindly keep the discussion centralized at Talk:Palestinian_keffiyeh#Duplication. Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 01:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: In your note  you wrote "Please discuss this issue" without indicating discussion should take place at Talk:Palestinian_keffiyeh#Duplication.  It cannot be assumed that everyone seeing it will assume the discussion is at Palestinian keffiyeh; it didn't occur to me and I only came across your section there by chance a while after starting this section. If the section here is merged with Palestinian_keffiyeh there'll not be any indication here that the matter was discussed. Mcljlm (talk) 14:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palestinian national symbol
Talk:JJ Redick

message: Just asking: why has this article's title remained italicized? Bagoto (talk) 03:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Italicized title

message: JJ Redick has started a podcast with LeBron James titled Mind the Game.    Dialmayo 19:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mind the Game
Talk:Forster's tern

message: Correct taxonomy for this species is: Order Charadriiformes, Family Laridae, Subfamily Sterninae, Genus Sterna.
Ron Landskroner
Oakland, CA
:not so, some regional areas may use this, but American isn't the same as correct, jimfbleak 19:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Daina (Latvia)

message: This doesn't mean the Baltic Sea, so does it mean the Baltic countries, the Baltic region or the Baltic states, which all seem to mean something different? Shantavira 18:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: In the Baltic
Talk:Voorschoten

message: I consider deleting the part about local troubles. It is complete nonsense and it makes me feel ashamed of being born there. The troubles described are very common in large city/smaller village situations, so there is no need to describe them here - in this childish manner. Oh, if I should have stated this at votes for deletion, please let me know! Eef (A) 22:49, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It also looks nonsensical to me. I've removed the offending paragraph. Sietse 18:26, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Talk:Julius Schreck

message: this guy looks like a manly version of hitler..
Lol. Maybe he had more then 1 ball. And he does look a lot like Hitler. Strange that... 08:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The schnauzbart in the style of Adolf Hitler was at that time a usual "mode feature". Who identified itself with the ideas of Hitler, carried the "Adolf beard". The same feature gave it during the German Kaiser era, when the German men carried the "emperor William beard" predominantly. Altogether: An interesting time feature! Postmann Michael 20:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: according to the page for the bavarian soviet republic, Julius was also loyal to the Bavarian Red Army during its existence, which does seem dubious if he joined the freikorps  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.230.178 (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That claim is not correct, per the WP:RS sources. Kierzek (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Watch "So, Hitler was a Communist in early 1919" by  TIK, it talks about the communism age of the folks like Hilter or Schreck 46.45.118.180 (talk) 05:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  allegiance
Category talk:Separation barriers

message: does Hadrian's Wall need to come within this category?
:It looks like it would yeah, feel free to add it.   --fvw<SMALL style="COLOR:green">*</SMALL> 22:56, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)
::Note that per the article Separation barrier, this is a new term that was originated by Israel to wall off the Palestinians and the overwhelming number of uses by reliable sources refer to that. The existing articles in this category include a few where WP:Reliable sources actually have applied the term and a bunch more where I'm still researching if they have. The list probably will be pared down quite a bit more when I'm done.  
::So do NOT put a wall/fence/barrier in this list unless it actually has a mainstream WP:RS saying it is one in the article itself.  Thanks. CarolMooreDC🗽 04:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, finished researching and per Separation barrier there are just a few minor source and/or trivial mentions of other fences/borders/etc. being "separation barrier". It is not a general catch all term, though some have tried to use Wikipedia to promote it as such an unfortunately there are a bunch of mirror sites and a few Wikipedia originated books that do just that. FYI. CarolMooreDC🗽 19:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Shouldn't this be merged with Category:Border barriers? It seems like separation barrier is a fairly political term and its subjective what border barriers are considered separation barriers.--Monochrome]]_Monitor</small> 17:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: What to put in this category
Talk:The Accursed Kings

message: What little is there reads like a review of the miniseries, not an article section.  It should be cleaned up. ip.address.conflict  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.159.255.67 (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article implies that the seventh volume in the series [VII. Quand un Roi perd la France (When a King Loses France)]is part of the Scribner English language translations.  It does not appear that an English translation was ever published.
128.135.53.213 17:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this section cannot be split into a new article becuase #1: it does not have any references, and it is to short. Removing tag. --MWOAP (talk) 00:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miniseries section and tone 

message: Perhaps it should be added that The Iron King was also published in the US as The Ardent Infidels by Ace Books (after the general structure of the article is cleaned up). 69.127.171.32 (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Bill Baxter (Victorian politician)

message: Bishop is the current... : Is "Bishop" supposed to be "Baxter"? Cnwb 23:07, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch, though I wish it had been fixed at the time; I didn't have this page on my Watchlist, so I managed to miss this message for eleven months. Ambi 11:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Talk:Champ de Mars

message: Its name means "Field of Mars", from Mars the Roman god of war, because it was originally used for military training.
Is anyone sure that Champs-de-Mars doesn't mean Marching Field?  I always thought this was the logical explanation, but I may be wrong, or maybe it convieniently means both.  I'll let someone with more than my 2.5 years of French change it.
Xyzzyva 23:14, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
:"Marching" is marche or parade. - Montréalais 08:14, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it simply means "Field of Mars", and it was originally used for military training. :-) You're mixing up "Mars" and "marche". David.Monniaux 19:40, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: I'm quite sure that the article title name is not hyphenated. I've looked up maps and guide books, and I've been there myself. It should be Champ de Mars. The official Eiffel Tower site (www.tour-eiffel.fr) does not use hyphens nor the official map of the Paris Metro system. So could someone make Champ de Mars the main title and Champ-de-Mars the Redirect, please. Thanks - Adrian Pingstone 14:26, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I've never seen it written with hyphens. David.Monniaux 18:35, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong article title

message: Which of the above (Champ de Mars or Champs de Mars) is the correct spelling? The first appears in the lead as the bolded term, but both appear within the text of the article. I think there should be consistency (plus, if the latter is correct, it should be added into the lead as a bolded, alternate name). —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 20:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Champ de Mars vs Champs de Mars 

message: Does anyone know the number of people killed in the massacre? It would improve the article if there was some number or estimate which could be cited. This is what the current version of the article states.
:After unsuccessful warning shots were fired, the National Guard opened fire on the crowd. Many of the crowd members were killed. This event is known as the Champ de Mars Massacre - Fusillade du Champ de Mars.
Thanks. --TGC55 (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death toll of massacre? 

message: ~~According to the book "1491" by Charles C. Mann, this area was created in June 1790 by thousands of Parisians of every social class as a monument to the new society, working in heavy rainfall without coercion or pay, digging out the entire enormous space in three weeks  to a depth of four ft. and filling it with enough sand and gravel to create an outdoor amphitheater to accomodate a half a million people.Rogerleestein (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Champ de Mars in the French Revolution 

message: Here, we say it abuts the CdM, but in Wik/ET, it says "The Eiffel Tower (French: La Tour Eiffel, [tuʁ ɛfɛl], nickname La dame de fer, the iron lady) is a puddle iron lattice tower located on the Champ de Mars in Paris."
202.179.16.72 (talk) 09:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the Eiffel Tower?
Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Chuck F

message: Is there anything specific keeping ArbCom from acting on this case? There's a request for temporary injunction which has yet to be considered at all, from what I can tell. I did introduce a mountain of evidence, but it's fairly comprehensive and Chuck has responded to fairly little of it, so I don't really see the point in staying in the evidence-gathering phase indefinitely. And while Chuck's behavior has improved markedly since the case was accepted, he's still violated the 3RR, and now seems to be headed for another epic battle with a new user, Libertas. RadicalSubversiv E 23:20, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Talk:Undeniable (Raven-Symoné album)

message: To whomever posted the figures of 73,000 for Undeniable and 8,000 for Here's To New Dreams:
Are you sure that Undeniable  sold 73,000 and Here's To New Dreams sold 8,000, or was it 73,000 for Here's To New Dreams and 8,000 for Undeniable?  Somebody with connections to SoundScan quoted 73,000 for Here's To New Dreams, 2,000 for the original Undeniable and 8,000 for its re-release, called From Then Until... (a combined 10,000).  Can you please check your info again to make sure you have the correct figure for its corresponding album?  --CookyMonzta 07:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sales mixup? 