lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Handkerchief code

message: Any article that makes a number of factual claims and only after several paragraphs inserts a sentence to the effect of "This is not a universal thing and is different depending who you talk to and where you are" needs to be totally rewritten. If nothing else the point that "this is not a universal thing" needs to go at the very front of the article.
Beyond that this article sounds a lot like someone is describing an urban legend as if it were fact.
Imma look into this and if no one else wants to take on the rewrite I'll do that. (I'll probably delete 80% of the material.) Hmoulding (talk) 14:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The last two paragraphs of the lede do seem to indicate uncited/original research, but the Origin and Examples sections are better and have at least of a couple of reliable sources.  I'll take a look later, when I'm not supposed to be working. HalJor (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

text: I took a stab at it.  I removed a fair amount of uncited/original research and rephrased a few sentences.  What remains is pretty general and (despite any additional citations) is reasonably true based on the citations that remain.  I can't find my copy of the reference for the "Origin" section, or I'd confirm that the entire section comes from that reference.  The "Examples" section is based on the citation mentioned there -- I rewrote that section a while back, more or less in its current form, so it should stand (the final sentence speaks to the current state of the code, where there is no consensus among the additional colors and the regionality of any deviations).  The only part that could use additional work is second paragraph of the lede.  Some of that is probably in the other works cited here -- I just don't have them handy. HalJor (talk) 00:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite! 

message: Has anyone else seen this? I'm not sure why the expanded version of the list isn't allowed in this article. https://unicornbooty.com/the-new-hanky-code-film-art-comedy/ --RThompson82 (talk) 00:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it doesn't satisfy WP:RS, perhaps?  That's a blog supporting a social networking app, and we've gone over this several times already. HalJor (talk) 02:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: THE BIG LIST

message: I've read about handkerchiefs being flashed as part of a signal for gay men cruising as far back as 1702 - http://rictornorton.co.uk/eighteen/twicken.htm
86.0.28.58 (talk) 13:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Much earlier origin?
Talk:Olsburg, Kansas

message: The 'Geography' section states the area as 0.2 mi², but the infobox states the area as 0.1 mi². Which is correct?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.160.60 (talk) 00:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancies 
Talk:Fundamental theorem on homomorphisms

message: Can we link to Commutative diagram on this page to explain the diagram? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarquin (talk • contribs) 11:59, 29 October 2002 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commutative diagram 

message: This theorem is a special case of the same theorem but in witch G/K is replaced by any group L and φ is replaced by any surjective homomorphism from G to L such that kernel(φ) is included in kernel(f) (this is equivallent to K included in kernel(f) since in this special case, K = kernel(φ)). 
The conclusion is the same: a unique g from L to H such that f = g o φ.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.10.169 (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A more general theorem

message: We should work on a more general form based on algebra formalisms since this theorem exists for vector spaces, and rings, etc. also and can be proved more generally for a suitable algebraic structure.--130.166.149.204 (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Generalization 

message: The redirect Factor through 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) 21:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Factor through]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Grammatical tense

message: Just wanted to let other users know that me and another classmate will be developing section 4.2 "syntax of tense" under "tense marking" for the next month or so for a university project.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krylow426 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: "Me and another classmate will be..." Huh? Whatever you develop, please avoid interpolating any faulty nominative case syntax. I've got my cursor poised over the undo tab as there's no auto-emendment function key. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 01:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Will be adding content for the next month or so 

message: Currently, tenseless language is a stub, however I think it would work far better as a subsection here to the relative lack of detail justifying a separate article. In either case, I also think it would be useful to describe a bit more how some of the languages listed work without it. Specter Koen (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Although this suggestion was made some months ago, with no response so far, I am adding my two cents worth: I think it's a reasonable idea.  The Tenseless language article hasn't expanded much since it was created in 2012 and it may work well as a subsection of this article. An expansion of how such languages work would be very welcome, whether within this article or at its current location.  Any knowledgeable editors willing to oblige, or comment on the proposed merger?  175.39.67.82 (talk) 03:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Klbrain (talk) 05:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tenseless Languages merger
Wikipedia talk:Multiple-place names

message: When should I put a disambig page in this list?
*Does the page have to exclusively disambiguate places or just include multiple places?
*Should articles with disambiguating hatnotes be included?
*As well as towns and cities, which of the following count as places:
**buildings, structures, parks, &c
**constituencies and administrative areas
**geomorphological features?
*What do people actually use this list for?
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 15:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What counts?
Talk:Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church

message: your edits are unsourced and poor. Hence it will be removed. If you are trying to contribute to the article, please discuss here. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 11:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  31 August 2021 

message: There is a discussion over at WP:RSN regarding the use of a certain book as a source for the article The Poem of the Man-God. Part of the discussion involves the commendation of the book in question by a Bishop of the (Malankara) Syriac Orthodox Church. Some editors are questioning his existence, thus bringing into question the credibility of the book itself. It seems there is sufficient evidence to show this Bishop is an authentic Bishop of the (Malankara) Syriac Orthodox Church, but some disagree. This is an informal request for comments, since some of you that participate on this talk page may have additional information pertaining to that part of the discussion. For those interested, instead of reading the entire thread, you can begin reading from near the end where I summarize the three remaining issues of contention and arguments, with a paragraph for each. Arkenstrone (talk) 02:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comments (informal) 

message: 148.252.146.158 (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2024 (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. User:CanonNi (talk|contribs) 23:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2024 

message: It is not the objective of a Wikipedia article to decide if the MOSC is autocephalic or not: it is the objective to say what sources say about it.  Thus the article could say "most sources indicate that the Church as autocephalic, while some deny it (based on a court decision)". 142.163.195.114 (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The article does that. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  not a dictionary or a definitive encyclopedia
Talk:Subcommittee on International Organizations of the Committee on International Relations

message: let People decide on their own. Or is that too much TOUBLE ? Brainwashing is for losers.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.49.215 (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

message: *Is the full text of the investigation findings text, available online, in another format other than PDF?  If not, Wikisource looks like an interesting place for that, being as how it is a work released into the public domain by the United States government.  Smeelgova 22:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full text? 

message: The notability of the article is sound.  Of course, we can always use more reputable secondary sourced citations, but the investigation itself is quite notable, and quite well covered in these secondary sources.  I shall add some when I get a chance...  Smee 08:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Smee, it is norm to leave the notability tag in until the issue is addressed, not remove it with a promise to address. However, I will trust you on this one. --Justanother 21:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Okay, thank you.  In this particular case, I had actually skimmed through some of the report whilst in the library at one point.  Needless to say, it is voluminous...  Smee 22:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable article 

message: This was not an investigation by the United States Congress, but just by one congressman.  It also was not an investigation of the Unification Church, but one of American-South Korean relations in which UC members (but not the church itself) played a part. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I would just call it Fraser Committee. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good to me. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename?

message: I added to the intro the fact that 4 years of real investigations after the initial muckraking produced nothing. Nit. Nada. The church got a clean bill of health. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Charges and lack of evidence

message: The whole article is based on nothing by primary sources. I am sure some news coverage of the event could be found. Borock (talk) 11:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm working on this now. Here is another source:  Borock (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary sources
Talk:Hindenburg disaster newsreel footage

message: KQ, Zoe, somebody, who made this film?  Morrison gets lots of ink for his broadcast, deservedly so, but what about the newsreel cameraman (cameramen)?  Ortolan88 16:57 Oct 29, 2002 (UTC)
:Is this footage available? Can we link to it somewhere? The Recycling Troll 03:41, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: KQ, Zoe

message: Strange, the footage doesn't show the mooring mast!!!!!! I even paused the footage to about the time when one of the most famous photos were taken and the mast shouldn't be off the screen. Maybe the cameras were closer and at a slightly different angle???? It's also strange that the close-up footage and the "best"(IMO) footage are very similar that the camera did the same thing until the middle. Additionally, universal newsreel's footage looks a bit different from the one on the bottom of the article. Frankyboy5 06:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Strange!!!!!!!

message: A shaky cam version of the footage can be seen in the documentary Hindenburg Disaster: Probable Cause (they actually got the picture mirrored!!!!!). National Geographic shows the same pictures but it was corrected. Frankyboy5 06:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shaky Cam Footage

message: The fourth video link, the one to Google, is not correct. It returns a 404 error, but I'm not sure of the best way to fix it, or whether it should just be deleted. I was actually looking for the radio broadcast with "Oh, the humanity." Shanen (talk) 10:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect video link
Talk:Madonna

message: Need to talk about Back That Up To The Beat and Frozen Remix trending on tiktok, Popular making her first top 10 single in 15 years in her collab with the weeknd, and the celebration tour being more sucsessfull then the previous madame x and rebel heart tours XMadame (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2024 (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. JTP (talk • contribs) 23:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2024 

message: Now that the Celebration Tour is over, I think some changes should be made to the table of contents for her article. As 2017 was around the time the Rebel Heart era ended and she moved to Portugal, I think that should be the beginning of the Madame X section.
Furthermore, the Celebration Tour should have its own section, seperated from the Madame X Tour.
In summary:
* 2012-2016: Superbowl, MDNA and Rebel Heart
* 2017-2021: Move to Portugal, further adoption, Madame X
* 2021-present: Finally Enough Love and The Celebration Tour
Will do WP:BOLD and edit this now. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 08:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dividing up "Life and career"
Talk:LZ 129 Hindenburg

message: Ever since I'd first heard about how the US had embargoed helium exports to the Nazis for the Hindenburg, I'd always wondered that where, in the 1930s, the Third Reich HAD been developing pre-war relations between Moscow and Berlin, could the Soviet Union ever have been a usable source of helium for the Hindenburg, using the double-gas cell idea originally conceived for the LZ 129?
One CIA document in PDF form that I found online that deals with Soviet-area helium resources indicates that from before 1934, Stalin's men were interested in helium extraction...if there HAD been enough helium content in Soviet natural gas reserves, might the Soviets been able to sell the Nazi government the helium that the Zeppelin firm wanted to "float" the LZ 129 with?
It's just an interesting thought...
The PIPE (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, these talk pages are for discussions about the article, not the subject. That conversation belongs elsewhere. That said, the likelihood of Soviets doing the Nazis a favor around the time of the Hindenburg approach nil - the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact  was shocking when it was signed. See Nazi–Soviet economic relations (1934–41). Tarl N. (discuss) 21:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet sources of helium for 1930's German passenger Zeppelins? 

message: I moved the bit about the death of the "the last living person to fly across the Atlantic on the Hindenburg", Anne Springs Close, to the end of the article. I also simplified it. I'm not certain where this information really belongs (if it belongs in the article at all), but it's not ideal to have it in the first paragraph of the "Final flight" section. 216.15.21.250 (talk) 04:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot see that it is relevant to this article and should be removed. MilborneOne (talk) 06:47, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It would fit in Hindenburg disaster#Deaths. So I just put it there. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:20, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last living trans-Atlantic passenger
Talk:Snake lemma

message: "The statement of the theorem could be seen written in a blackboard behind Dustin Hoffman at the very beginning of the 1967 film The Graduate."
I've wachted the whole film and I haven't seen it!
Caiodnh (talk) 11:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The Graduate

message: I think this page should feature a proof of the Snake Lemma in Abelian Categories without using the Embedding Theorem.
Imho this is very illustrative and can be found for example in Gelfand-Manin.
Is this to advanced for this page?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by T3kcit (talk • contribs) 10:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abelian Categories 

message: This article is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Scientific citation guidelines#Snake lemma as example. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion elsewhere
Talk:Cocktail glass

message: I used to be a bartender, and also went to school for bartending, and I can tell you that this article is wrong. A cocktail glass is 4 1/2 ounces. A martini glass is 6-7 ounces. The two are not the same at all. What's pictured is not a cocktail glass. Here is an example of what a cocktail glass looks like: http://www.don.com/catalog/productdetail.aspx?calling=6&catType=1&cat=Glassware_B&child=Excellency_BADB&resume=%2fCatalog%2fbrowsecatalog.aspx%3fcatType%3d1%26cat%3dGlassware_B%26child%3dExcellency_BADB&prodid=G1646 67.163.199.131 02:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is wrong 

message: The article says "Today, the drink is used to serve a variety of cocktails." I'm pretty sure this should say "the glass."
However, the article also says that a cocktail glass is not the same as a martini glass, then goes on to say that a cocktail glass is commonly used to serve a Martini. I feel that this deserves some clarification. HOW does the cocktail glass differ from a martini glass? This should be in the article. (Aside: isn't it improper to link "martini glass" to the article on the Martini drink? They are not the same thing.) Elindsey83 (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors and additions 

message: To state that "A standard cocktail glass contains 90 to 300 millilitres" is dubious. If there truly is an internationally or even nationally recognised standard (which there is not) there there would be a specific volume or small range of volumes (eg 125-150ml) but the range of 90-300ml is so large that to claim that it is a standard is quite absurd. I propose that this statement is rewritten "a cocktail glass typically contains 90 to 300ml"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.146.110 (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vague Statement
Talk:Valium

message: Note: This document originally contained text derived from the presumed public domain U.S. Federal Government sources http://www.pl.barc.usda.gov/amed_detail.cfm?medicine_id=65 and http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov/htdocs/Chem_H&S/NTP_Chem4/Radian439-14-5.html
----
This article needs much editing and it might be better to move the content entirely to benzodiazepine and make this a redirect. Any opinions, please?Kosebamse 06:34 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)
I believe benzodiazepine should definitely have a link to diazepam, as diazepam is only one member in a large family of benzodiazepines. I think that the content of this page should be moved to diazepam, and this page should have information including the company that makes it and the ingredients. The diazepam page should have the information on the abuse potential, as Valium is not the only name for diazepam. DryGrain 02:24, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Talk:Ace

message: Never seen this. Remove? -- anonymous coward @ 84.60.94.101 (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  1 on an Ace in french decks 

message: How is it possible!!??!!?!--LandonJaeger (talk) 00:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  5 ACES!?!? 

message: The current article makes up a fanciful tale about how Ace was perhaps moved to the top because it was "number one". If this was the case, why didn't 2 become "number two" etc? I could find no sources to back up this tale and I'll instead reword it to point out that perhaps the ace was promoted just for the novelty of doing so. The German deck experienced the same phenomenon it would seem, since their 2 was promoted to the top of the deck. Owen214 (talk) 04:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In my example about the German 2 being promoted, I can't find any German games older than the French revolution; perhaps the French deck was the only one to experience this promotion and the Germans just copied it after the revolution. If anyone else knows, please adjust the article accordingly. Owen214 (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Promotion of Aces
Talk:Torah

message: Alexander's army entered Palestine/Israel after the siege of Tyre, in 332 BCE, the date of 333 BCE for the start of the Hellenistic period is inaccurate. 79.116.76.190 (talk) 09:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Hellenistic period didn't start at 333 BCE, it was a year later.
Talk:Circumpolar star

message: Merge Circumpolar constellation into Circumpolar star
I see no reason why the article Circumpolar constellation needs to exist separately from this one; it describes the exact same concept and is a very short article anyway with little content that isn't already mentioned here. 86.144.233.215 (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Klbrain (talk) 21:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Polaris is a circumpolar star that does NOT always have an azimuth of zero, as it does not sit exactly on the polar axis. alex (talk) 09:22, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polaris
Talk:Names for books of Jewish and Christian scripture

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Adumbrativus (talk) 06:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Names for books of Judeo-Christian scripture →  – article covers books that are not just common to both religions (i.e., Judeo-Christian) but also ones that are specifically Jewish or specifically Christian. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

text: Support for previously stated reasons but also especially considering the complicated / controversial nature of the term Judeo-Christian itself. Sillypilled (talk) 02:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 30 November 2023