lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Wikipedia talk:Call a spade a spade

message: Spade is often used as a racially discriminative term, based on the colour, both of the card and the sandcastle making device.
Also the picture on the project page appears to be a shovel.    Just so you know.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.35.134 (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To call a spade a spade  68.179.108.25 (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dont call people spades. 

message: Is it necessary to show the second shortcut in the shortcut box? WP:Duck is nice to have and I tend to type "wp:____" in lowercases anyways (shaves a few milliseconds off typing), but it looks out of place in that shortcut box. Maybe I'm being picky? :D – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 07:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:DUCK / WP:Duck 

message: Isn't this article almost diametrically opposed to assuming good faith?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.178.24 (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good faith? 

message: pointed out elsewhere that "calling a spade a spade" has taken on a racist connotation. I was unaware of this. Should we, as suggested in the NPR article, retire the term and rename this essay? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I would just add the comments in NPR and other sources to the article. It actually says that one should be cautious when using the term. Personally, I would not use it. I brought it up in the other article to make the point that common vocabulary can acquire negative connotations, even if that is not what the speaker meant. TFD (talk) 02:07, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racist?
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Collaboration

message: I am having a difference of opinion with User:Inigmatus who insists that :Category:WikiProject Messianic Judaism be a sub-category of :Category:WikiProject Judaism. I have tried to edit the page , and have even tried a compromise of having it be part of :Category:Christian and Jewish interfaith topics instead which would be perfect for it, but each time he reverts me, claiming "We make that call, not you. We're not part of "normative" Christianity either."  and this:" "We" is Messianics. either both Judaism and Christain categories, or none go here. We make the call, because Messianics know best what is Messianic." , and he adds on Category talk:WikiProject Messianic Judaism#Main categories: "Either Christian and Judaism categories go here, or they both don't. Not one or the other. Messianics do not ascribe to Chrisitanity, and Judaism is an unrelated category. I didn't put either category in, so I request both be removed, but if one is to be listed, then I request both Christianity and Judaism be listed. "We" Messianics have the right to inform the readers who "we" are affiliated with. inigmatus 04:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute over Category:WikiProject Messianic Judaism

message: Okay, now if you look at the history, all the old and new edits will be together as I did a history merge. Now to do the same with the main page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: Alright - Magister scienta, you gotta stop writing "wikafacation" on the page - I have to resist the urge to fix the spelling, but more importantly we shouldn't be coming across that many articles that need wikifying. What I would do is give it 7-10 days for voting once you've spammed "welcome" or "collab-reactivation" templates everywhere you can think of. The interesting thing is what and how people choose, and wnat strikes me is the rather unusual article choice of previous ideas at Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism/Collaboration/History. My line of thinking was broader articles that a wide range of editors can help with - these might include Kashrut, which needs a bunch of referencing, Yiddish language looks in not bad shape, and needs some inline referencing. Actually, there might be better candidates of articles which havbe sizeable content-holes in them so some editors can ferret around for content while others look for sources. I'd probably avoid ones which might contain material around Israel-palestine relations as these can be quite tricky to keep stable. My rationale for trying to encourage collaborations wikipedia-wide is that the increasing thoroughness of review favours the smaller more esoteric articles making GA and FA, so we need some way of improving the bigger articles. Anyway, this is my view and others may have a different opinion. But I'd announce it and see what happens, and give it 7-10 days for voting, and then choose the top-vote-getter and leave it as the collab for a month and see how it goes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next step - how to get started
Talk:Island College of Technology

message: I'm not advertising.Tell me how do i minimize the impact,furthermore im not a native speaker forgive me for my lack of language skills
Im sorry for my lack of understanding regarding the fair use of image in the article.Secondly to those who are willing to contribute anything to the development of the article, feel free to contact me - nabelon.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.41.187 (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Talk:BMW C1

message: I removed two sites from the list of external links. It would be good if the links were discussed here instead of simply being reinstated. Here are the links I removed and my reasons:
*UK Free C1 Owners Club - this is a web based forum with virtually no content. It has only been setup since June and many of the forums within it have very few posts. It is a duplication of the other forums listed and adds no value to this article. External links is not meant to be an exhaustive list. 
*UK C1 Safety site - this is a single Wiki page with little content that has not been updated since 2006. As a Wiki, if the content is useful then it should be put on this Wikipedia article instead. 
--Cheesy Mike 17:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just removed all the club links. They are all simply web based forums with discussions but no encyclopaedic content that adds value to this article. If anyone can identify some quality C1 related websites then please add them. --Cheesy Mike 20:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing external links

message: Lines like "BMW build quality is particularly noticeable..." are obviously POV. Including a large blockquote and lengthy defense of the plan to have riders go without helmets, without any mention of what motivated regulators in the UK decided helmets were mandatory is way out of balance. Needs to stick to facts and carefully frame individual opinions lauding the good qualities of the C1. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advert tag
Talk:BMW R1200C

message: I am cleaning up the page to take of the citations section. If I do not find sources, it goes away Bmwtroll (talk) 12:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: model changes could be seen here 
http://www.r1200c.de/kauf/modellpflege.htm Bmwtroll (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Personal websites or fan sites are not reliable sources. See WP:RS --Biker Biker (talk) 08:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: April 2013
Talk:Catholic Church in Singapore

message: I think this event should be covered in this article. While it may be distasteful, it is a bit of history which is poorly described in Singapore. I would do it if I knew what had happened, but I don't. --Rifleman 82 07:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marxist Plot of 1987 

message: This fundamental difference needs to be re-iterated over and over again - there is only one Roman Catholic church and it has 30 parishes in Singapore.
-- [KevinMichaelSim@yahoo.com]
:Nonsense. 'churches' is fine when not capitalised, for 'church' refers to 'parish church'. 'Church' refers an organisation. Ergo, there is one Roman Catholic Church that has 30 churches/parishes in Singapore. InfernoXV 18:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's Parishes not churches 
Talk:Biffa

message: I'm pretty sure Bob Davies linked to in the article is the wrong person. Is it perhaps Robert Davies? He is at least in the UK, but the article makes no mention of waste management... camelworks(Mclowes) 15:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bob 
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Kempshott Junior School

message: This decision was a shame. We need to discuss "notability" for schools at some point on wikipedia. Kukini 15:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The page had almost no valuable content whatsoever. I have never voted against keeping a school in my life, but this one just added nothing to the encyclopedia. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 04:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Kukini, two discussions are underway- at WP:SCHOOLS and WP:SCHOOLS3. JoshuaZ 04:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Casey, Wisconsin

message: For the actual name of the town, see its website. Topeka Sam (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of town
Talk:Hilton London Paddington

message: Is this text really relevant to an article about the Hotel?
: Philip Charles Hardwick was the son of eminent architect, Philip Hardwick (1792-1870) who was the designer of the famous Euston Arch at Euston railway station.
Surely the link to PC Hardwick is enough for readers to discover this for themselves?Paul W 15:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevance
Talk:Rachel Zoe

message: Spelling and Grammar is atrocious, but I know very little about this woman. Can someone who does make this page more readable? Jessica lp (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs Editing

message: Should we mention the public feuding btw her and former client Nicole Ritchie?
Probably not, as the original post on Richie's myspace has been deleted.
I think at least with crediting Richie with participation of the boho chic look, it should state Richie and herself are estranged and no longer working together.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.43.200 (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Feuding with Richie

message: I think that the photo on this article is a bit unfair and unflattering to Ms Zoe. It shows her nipples! I don't think that is a fair representation of this hard working, stylish woman. Maybe some of you guys like it but that's not a great reason.
Does anyone agree? Vintageandhaute (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like the photo either. I don't like how it is in black and white. Anyone have a better photo? --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate Photo 

message: :Well, it's not suggested to use Twitter. I mean, she could be lying. If an independent publication (news, etc.) says her birthdate is the same, though, then we're assuming she's telling the truth. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Blending those sources and doing math to figure out how old the subject is synthesizing. Last time I looked, we're not suppose to do that. That's the reason the DOB has been removed various times, because there's not a source that explicitly states what her DOB is. Since the subject has been a source of contention in the past, we need a source that's crystal clear. If anything, a proper RfC needs to be opened regarding this issue to get a broader community view. One person coming in and bitching about not being able to use IMDb and calling me an ass for pointing out basic policy isn't someone I'm terribly interested in working by myself with. Pinkadelica♣ 14:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: help!
Talk:Engel Stadium

message: A separate article needs to be started on Joe Engel instead of filling up every article that is remotely related to him with information about him.--Hatch68 22:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I am not sure the statement that the Lookouts first two seasons were 1909-1910 is correct. If you look at their page, it claims they date back to the 1880s.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:305F:B560:E10A:62DF:D94D:4D54 (talk) 15:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lookouts history correct?
Talk:Marvin Schindler

message: The award Bundesverdienstkreuz does not seem enough for notability - there are 3000 to 5000 given away every year. Obina 15:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Coloma (town), Wisconsin

message: The coordinates shown for the town are the same as for the village, True, they are both called Coloma, and it could be said that it's OK because the village is in the town. Problem is villages are not part of towns in Wisconsin. Topeka Sam (talk) 01:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coloma
Talk:Couderay (town), Wisconsin

message: Why would the village website be linked to the town? Topeka Sam (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Couderay
Talk:Williamson Senior High School

message: I'm wondering if this article should become a section of the Williamson Central School District article. Of course, that may require creating sections for the other two campuses as well . . . .  Thoughts?  Jim Dunning 15:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Dakota, Wisconsin

message: There are two, one for the community and one for the town. Wouldn't the template require that there be four -- two for each? Topeka Sam (talk) 05:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinates of Dakota
Talk:Berezan Island

message: Maps like this one should not be very precise, but shouldn't be that much imprecise, either. To place the island of Berezan to the east of Olbia! Just take a look at this picture: Berezan is situated at the mouth of the Dnieper-Bug estuary, south-west from Olbia.--Barbatus 15:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The layout of the map is discussed on Template talk:Pontic colonies. It was me who requested a map and I'm glad that we've got it. You are welcome to express your opinion on the page I pointed out, in a more civil form though. --Ghirla -трёп- 15:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the information, Barbatus.  To be honest, I still can't find the island, even on Google maps.  According to the article, the island is less than 1 x 1 km, and I just can't find it on any map (Google or otherwise).  The coordinates above seem to point to a spot on the mainland, and not an island.  In any case, my goal is to provide very accurate maps -- just let me know where this little bit of land might be.  Thanks for bringing this to my attention, MapMaster 17:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh ... that Google map was only to show where Berezan is situated in relation to Olbia. Here's the island; if you zoom in, you can even see traces of archaeological digs (... it was a lot of fun!) in the northern and central parts of if, and remains of the Turkish fort in the south. Speaking about Olbia ... it is located a bit upriver, farther north than it is shown on your map, as you can see here. (And thanks for not taking offence :)--Barbatus 17:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: ... By the way, this site might help you in your map-making.--Barbatus 18:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: By the way, if memory serves me, the very name of the Greek settlement on our tiny island is in question. Should we rephrase it something like "possibly/probably known in ancient times as ..."? If any firm evidense has been found and published in the last 10 years or so, I've missed it and I'd be grateful for any info. Danke,--Barbatus 17:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: * The name of the colony is uncertain; Borysthenes is but a guess.
* It is definitely one of the earliest Greek settlements in the Northern Black Sea Littoral, not 'thought to be one.'
* Olbia is not separated from Berezan by the river.
* I'm not sure about archaeologist being under pressure to dig on the island; last time I went there, in the Summer of 1993 or 1994, the very future of the main expedition, from the Hermitage Museum, was problematic due to the recent dissolution of the USSR; the team from the Kiev Institute of Archaeology continued to excavate, but its prospects were also bleak. Money, money, money ... Who knows, probably they found a rich benefactor? From the other hand, there's almost nothing left to dig.
::--Barbatus 22:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some changes
Talk:Princess Xenia Georgievna of Russia

message: Xenia recognized Anna Anderson as the Grand Duchess Anastasia at once
This really needs to be re-phrased.  Anna Anderson and her supporters have never been able to prove that she was the Grand Duchess Anastacia, and the only DNA test to be carried out appears to rule it out. As Xenia was no doubt genuine in beliefs, can we instead say that she believed that Anna Anderson was the Grand Duchess, and continued to do so throughout her life.  Direct discussuion of Anna Anderson should take place on the Anna Anderson page.  Indisciplined 15:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Grand Army of the Republic Hall (Litchfield, Minnesota)

message: I don't know who put the "first person" tag on the article, but it does indeed need cleanup.  It should properly cite "Terry Tales" instead of being a direct quote from the book, although I believe Terry Shaw (the author of "Terry Tales") entered all the text himself.  Can this be properly GFDL-ed?  --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 15:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've just done a rough cleanup to get rid of the first and second person language and to divide it into sections. I deleted some unsourced bragging type statements, I've deleted the tag. It still needs cleanup work in other areas. clariosophic (talk) 00:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First person
Talk:Nashim

message: There is a bunch of template code showing at the bottom of the page.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfass (talk • contribs) 15:50, 28/Nov/06
:Not anymore. -- -- -- 22:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Code showing 

message: Any problem if I change the redirect of Kiddushin from here to Erusin, then put a note on the Erusin page?Mzk1 (talk) 20:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wish to redirect
Talk:List of double placenames

message: I've reordered this page and given it an introduction, followed by the categories in order or importance/contemporaneity. Whether the page should be continued as a comprehensive list of amalgamated placenames worldwide is up for debate. 
It would be far more in line with the Wikipedia approach to simply use the "Amalgamated placenames" category for towns and districts, so that they could be dynamically collected into a listing. If we continue as the contributor who created the "United Kingdom" section did, we are going to have a very unwieldy article. I would suggest that this page therefore be limited to countries, states, dependent territories and the city of Budapest. Tacitus 15:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As the adder of the UK section, I concur: but why exempt Budapest? As a piece of trivia, I find Lewis with Harris more amusing.  Also, we should remove the "List" from the page title if the relative sizes of introduction and list demand it. jnestorius(talk) 21:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: As per comments above, there is some confusion as to what a double named place might be.  This article perhaps should be called amalgamated place names or double-barrelled place names.--Golden Wattle  talk 20:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does "barrel" add anything? —Tamfang (talk) 06:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: The place known as Bosnia-Hercegovina in this article is more commonly known as Bosnia and Herzegovina.
71.102.144.27 00:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bosnia et al.

message: When were Svalbard and Jan Mayen treated one entity?!? Jakro64 (talk) 03:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Svalbard and Jan Mayen? 

message: Both King's Cross and St Pancras are train stations, so there is no hierarchical ordering in those names. So it seems to me that King's Cross St Pancras should not be a binomial placename. Bernard Teo (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the names mentioned are for combinations of things of equal rank. —Tamfang (talk) 06:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is King's Cross St Pancras a binomial placename? 

message: I'm a bit surprised to find no mention of another class of double names: those of lordships created by partition among brothers, like Saxe-Meiningen. —Tamfang (talk) 06:22, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  German partitions
Talk:Cessna Airmaster

message: My reference"The Complete Encyclopedia of World Aircraft" Editors: Paul Eden & Soph Moeng, (Amber Books Ltd. Bradley's Close, 74-77 White Lion Street, London, NI 9PF, 2002, ), 1152 pp. says the Cessna C-165 with the 165 hp Super Scarab engine, was a follow-on to the C-145 which was a redesignation of the Model C-39 (the numerical part indicating horsepower, 145 hp). The C-165D had a 175 hp Super Scarab. The C-39 was a new design 4-seat model rolled out 11 September 1938.
The two Army Model C-34s had the USAAF designation UC-77B. (Out of 42 built)
One Model C-37 had the USAAF designation UC-77C. (out of 46 built)
Three Model C-165s had the USAAF designation UC-94. (42 C-145s built, 34 C-165s built, 3 C-165Ds built)
I'm only interested in the Military Aviation part. This whole article might need to be reworked someday. Do whatever y'all think best. --Colputt 23:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused 

message: Propose that the article should be moved to Cessna C-165 which is the more usual name for these earlier Cessnas which should not be confused with the later model 120, 140 etc when the C prefix was dropped. Any comment ? MilborneOne (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: This article has been reverted by a bot to  as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that 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. VWBot (talk) 06:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem 
Talk:Dexter, Wisconsin

message: : Not Moved (but a new article Dexterville, Wisconsin was created). Station1 (talk) 07:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Dexter, Wisconsin → Dexterville — The name of the town, located just 5 miles from Pittsville, is actually Dexterville. Sandie0707 (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I opposed the move also. The official name of the town is Dexter. However, there is an unincororated community named:Dexterville, Wisconsin within the town. I will now start the article-however, the official name of the town is Dexter not Dexterville. Thanks-RFD (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose per RFD, who has taken care of your request by creating an article for the unincorporated community. Royalbroil 02:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Oppose.  Dexter, Wisconsin is a town, Dexterville, Wisconsin is an unincorporated community. --BaronLarf 07:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 
Talk:Draper, Wisconsin

message: if a town of 138 sq mi needs its coordinates repeated, shouldn't they be the same? Topeka Sam (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinates