lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Parasailing

message: Citation needed for the whole into paragraph, seems that people are talking from their own experience. Own experience maybe factual but not a reliable resource for this page. Hallehoward (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: . He is the oldest Parasailor to do so.
Similarly, on 29th Feb 2008, Master Kedar Anand Munje (Prune) took two Parasailing flights by using Longest Rope for towing Parasail (Jeep Launch). He was 123 years of age. He used 2757 feet of rope when normally only 200 feet of rope is used in India (Jeep Launch)."
Wait, what? 24.174.190.156 (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mr. Mahajan repeated his performance again on 27 May 2008 at Lonavala. He was 112 years old when he did this feat 

message: If a good reference is known, should we insert one (with discussion) as to why a symmetric hemisperical parachute lifts upward when towed? Navuoy (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aerodynamics reference? 

message: They don't really fit,maybe they could be rewritten as one short section. Also the record longest rope was at the lowest end of the range of ropes used in the previous sections.--129.19.136.153 (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed records

message: A lot of the stuff on inventions was written by .  Probably a conflict of interest; definitely unsourced and too peacocky.  Needs work.  Dicklyon (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict of interest 

message: Surprisingly, there's no discussion of the hazards and mishaps associated with this recreation or of the clamor to get some legislation enacted to govern the industry. Another parasailer died today (12/08/15). Orthotox (talk) 06:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm surprised as well, especially after the events of 3rd of July 2013 Graham1973 (talk) 04:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Safety Issues and Regulation 

message: The German-Austrian Film "Im weissen Roessel" from 1960 contains a scene, where the main character is water skiing and pulled up with an umbrella  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ7syGrp8UM
91.137.96.17 (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film from 1960
Talk:Montparnasse Cemetery

message: Hi all! I want to add screen shots from the following cite to the page: https://api-site.paris.fr/images/74771  
They are a map of the cemetery and important people buried there. 
Is there a way to do so? I want to cite the website. 
Abkeating (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cemetery Plan
Talk:Athlon

message: :FOLDOC WP:PLAGIARISM checked ~Kvng (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

message: * I could perhaps have missed it but I see no mention of it anywhere on this page. Does X4 use a different micro architecture I thought it used Kaveri, that is one of the Athlon architectures is it not? Also this page is all over the place. It talks about Athlon from as far back as 2009 yet it says Athlon was launched in 2018 and refers to the modern chips in the shorthand box.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:E99E:9800:C960:EBEE:1B5B:CF1C (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Athlon X4 Missing?
Talk:First Balkenende cabinet

message: Isn't is a little early to call this cabinet Balkenende-1? Who knows if there'll be a second? And if you want to keep it, let's not use the "-1" format then (I think the entire title could use some work). Jheijmans 04:45 Jul 23, 2002 (PDT)
:I'm sure you are right, the -1 is "just in case" and I've seen it in news articles.  But the title is reasonably non-ambiguous.  Please go ahead and rename it if you can think of something better.
:Cabinet Balkenende (Netherlands) perhaps?
:: We're up to Balkenende IV now..... Arnoutf 14:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Éowyn

message: I don't really like the phrasing of "she calls herself a shieldmaiden". Saying that "she claims to be" as opposed to "she is" has the implication that she thinks she is a shieldmaiden but in fact isn't. Clearly our goal is not to claim something about a character is truth just because they say it is but given that she (and Merry) were able to Kill the Witch-king when no other could I would argue she did prove her worth as a soldier of Rohan. I made an edit changing this and it (reasonably) was reverted by @Chiswick Chap because "shieldmaiden" isn't modern language used in wikipedia. Maybe it could be rephrased some way that avoid this issue but still uses modern English? I'm pretty new to wikipedia so I don't know the ins and outs of how everything should be done so I won't push it if nobody agrees with my but just wanted to suggest this. Flaming Hot Mess of Confusion (talk) 13:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed "calls" to "describes", which is certainly neutral, and certainly correct. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phrasing in lead - suggested change
Talk:Nigger

message: Popular consensus is the n-word is typically referring to the slang word rather than the slur. Coronaverification (talk) 07:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Are they not literally one in the same? UnbearableIsBad (talk) 22:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  N-word should redirect to the slang term.  

message: and other interested editors need to talk about it instead of this tug of war. Cheers. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 02:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record: I agree with VexVector; it's not a proper noun and is used in the disputed case (puns rule) within a sentence, so should be all lower case. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 02:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Correct: The word nigger in the opening paragraph should not be capitalized. It is not a proper noun. Vex-Vectoꝛ​​ 02:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warring over the case of a letter? 

message: The "US slave-era phrase denoting escaped slaves hiding in train-transported woodpiles" ALSO refers to concealed/denied mixed-race ancestry. I don't know how that information should best be included/acknowledged, but it shouldn't be ignored. Poihths (talk) 19:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another important meaning of the woodpile phrase
Talk:Eärendil and Elwing

message: Doesn't Aragorn or Sam chant a poem about Eärendil in LOTR?
:Yes, but we have enough quotes already. -Smack 04:56, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: It was Bilbo. And it's a really short poem! Only about 3 or 4 pages long... Carcharoth 00:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: "First draft" isn't really accurate; the published poem is quite developed and was in fact the twelfth version, not counting the earlier "Errantry" versions.  However there was indeed a further development of the poem after the twelfth version, in three more versions. Apparently the last version, intended to be published, was mislaid and the earlier version was published instead.  The final version can be read in The Treason of Isengard. Mnudelman (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Unitlted

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Aerandir. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 14#Aerandir until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Hog Farm  Bacon 20:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Aerandir" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Eärnil. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 14#Eärnil until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Hildeoc (talk) 11:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Eärnil" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 
Talk:Muhammad Ali

message: There was a discrepancy between 7:1 and 8:1 odds in various articles covering Ali's (Clay at the time) first bout with Sonny Liston, so I resolved it to show 8:1 everywhere with a pretty hard source (New York Times). If there is a discrepancy with other sources, please let me know. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 20:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odds at time of first Liston bout 

message: change "champ" to champion Siarra117 (talk) 00:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. M.Bitton (talk) 14:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Outside of quotes, 'champ' appears twice in the article.  Neither of the uses appear to be egregious, and I believe most readers see the terms as interchangeable. So, what exactly is the issue here? Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 03:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2024 

message: he was muslim not orthodox 196.190.61.184 (talk) 03:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Stance is a boxing term, not a religious one. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 03:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stance 

message: The page is locked. Can some registered user please add the above link to Doug Jones’ page to his name in the list of Ali’s bouts. It is plain text at the present time. Thank you.2601:196:180:DC0:5C45:48EB:C727:25A1 (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Doug Jones is already linked in that table. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 23:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding link to Doug Jones (boxer) 

message: Parkinson disease has no known cause, if Muhammad Ali's PD was caused by repeated blows to the head as is claimed then it would be more accurate to say he developed parkinsonism (motor symptoms similar to those caused by PD but rather caused by a different neurological condition which in this case would most likely be TBI or CTE)    2600:100F:B1B9:F40E:DD22:9688:AC02:39DB (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: To say Ali had "Parkinsonism", we need to have reliable sources that say that. We as editors cannot make diagnoses. Wikipedia articles are built from reliable sources. See also WP:VNT. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 19:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muhammeds Parkinson edit request on 5 June 2024
Talk:Immunoperoxidase

message: Thanks to the author of these article.  They look like they 
contain lots of useful information.  A couple of quick 
requests: 
* Could you get yourself a login so we can identify you by 
name on the recent changes page?  You don't have to reveal 
your real identity if you don't want to. * Could you please 
provide additional context and explanation, and perhaps lay
off a little of the jargon, to assist nonexperts to 
understand these articles? * If you are using a specific 
source or sources for this information, could you possibly 
cite them? 
Thank you.  --Robert Merkel
:I've done a major rewrite a few months ago - this article is an extension of the immunostaining article with more specific details but it could still use a lot of work on referencing and more about the specific applications of immunoperoxidase staining, for instance. Dr Aaron 13:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:The Pale/Archive 1

message: The article needs more information on dates, in particular when the Pale was established, how long it lasted, and what happened to end it.--Srleffler 20:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested changes

message: I propose to move Pale to The Pale, to allow the current title to be used for an article on pales in general. I have started that article at Pale (jurisdiction) for now.--Srleffler 20:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was move. Andrewa 02:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
===Discussion===
The initial survey results have been so overwhelmingly positive that I have taken the liberty of adjusting the text and links in advance. Everything still works in the interim (thanks to redirects), except the link to Pale in this article, which will be active as a link to pales in general after the move.--Srleffler 04:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Propose move

message: The initial survey results have been so overwhelmingly positive that I have taken the liberty of adjusting the text and links in advance. Everything still works in the interim (thanks to redirects), except the link to Pale in this article, which will be active as a link to pales in general after the move.--Srleffler 04:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion
Talk:Republic (disambiguation)

message: See also talk:Republic (Plato) --Francis Schonken 22:49, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment 2005

message: I came here because of DHT863's request at the help page. I'd never seen this disamb page before. I've read all the page and all the comments above, and you seem to be picking a fight where none exists. Please stop. User:Bkonrad, Pam and I all have tens of thousands of edits, you currently have 122, nearly all to this disamb and its talk page. Isn't it at least possible that you may be wrong? Even if you are not, the consensus is not to implement your suggested changes, so that's what will happen. Uninvolved admin User:Black Kite has protected the page temporarily so you don't continue reverting and get yourself blocked for disruptive editing Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: *Will someone at least explain why my suggestions are wrong? I don't claim any great infallibility but my suggestions are offered as honest improvements. It is unfair to say my suggestions are "wrong" and imply that I'm a vandal. So here I am on the Talk page searching for "consensus" but nobody talks. My only intention is improvement and conformance to all other similar pages. The only reason I am focusing on this page is because it looks weird compared to other similar pages - to me that is a signal it needs polishing. Is there anyone one that is able to grant me the courtesy of admitting the merits of my suggestions and then explain why you don't want my improvements - I have no trouble accepting rational explanations. I don't want to step on any toes. I don't want to upset procedures. I'm very disturbed by the accusation of "picking a fight"? But please, help me understand by explaining rather than dishing out denials. Thanks. -- DHT863 (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Regarding "Federal republic" meaning "a federation of states with a republican form of government": a republic can not be a monarchy but it can be an autocracy, an oligarchy, or a democracy. So a democracy can have a republican form of government (the philosophy not the US political party) but an autocratic republic can not have a republican form of government and an oligarchic republic can not have a republican form of government only a democratic republic can. The reason is because the principles of republicanism require that a nation must have a democratic form of government in order to be considered as complying with the philosophy. So the note is ambiguous unless it clearly states that it only refers to the special case of a "federal democratic republic". The note is kind of trivial and I don't see that it serves any useful purpose. -- Calif.DonTracy (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: So is it your opinion that the first sentence in the federal republic article is incorrect? If so, make the case on the talk page for that article. Disambiguation pages merely reflect the articles to which they refer and cannot make assertions that are not supported by the linked article. older ≠ wiser 19:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misused political terms
Talk:Palermo Technical Impact Hazard Scale

message: What is the "background hazard" exactly? Jheijmans
Excuse my probable innumeracy, but how is a 1 in 63 event 950% more likely than a 1 in 16000 event?  100 * ((1/63)/(1/16000)) - 100=25296 -- ~ 25000%,more likely, no? 950% is about right for 1.02 -- 10^1.02 =~ 10.5.  I suspect the background risk is actually higher than 1/16000. Mike Linksvayer 05:44, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Background hazard

message: Where does the kinetic yield slot in exactly? The formula I see has space for chance of hitting, chance of something hitting, and time. Nothing about yield in there. Supersheep 22:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't see it either. They should be separate anyway, or at least a scale should be available that separates the two. If we are asking about a particular object, of known size and velocity ("yield") then you are only interested in its chance of hitting you, and the Palermo or whatever scale just serves to muddy the waters, so to speak. Kortoso (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kinetic yield 

message: Historic Palermo Ratings (All are past tense)
I don't love that language.  How about "Highest peak Palermo ratings" above the chart and "Each of these objects has since dropped below −2” below it? —Tamfang (talk) 21:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  past tense
Talk:Scotland

message: The side bar gives a list of four official languages and a source that links to a non existent page.
On the other hand, if you visit the Scottish government website, the only language that has a law proclaiming its officiality seems to be Gaelic:
https://www.gov.scot/policies/languages/
Can anyone find any source for the other three (Scots, English and BSL)?
--77.75.179.1 (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The British Sign Language (Scotland) Act (2015 asp 11) declared aims to "to promote, and facilitate the promotion of, the use and understanding of the language known as British Sign Language" . This subsequently inspired  the British Sign Language Act (2022 c.34): "An Act to recognise British Sign Language as a language of England, Wales and Scotland". AllyD (talk) 09:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Updated reference and dropped 'official' Dgp4004 (talk) 11:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official languages 

message: I suggest adding a distinct section within the History of Scotland section that deals with Scotland's involvement in the British Empire. MiloThatch 98 (talk) 23:56, 26 February 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. 💜  melecie  talk - 01:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2024
Talk:China

message: Strategic Support Force no longer exist, the PLA now has four arms — Aerospace Force, Cyberspace Force, Information Support Force, and Joint Logistics Support Force. 158.223.166.44 (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Liu1126 (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 May 2024 

message: I think the government form described in the "Government" section of the infobox is absurd. While "Marxist-Leninist one-party socialist state" is true, the land area of PRC may not suitable for an unitary management, because there are some autonomous regions (e.g. Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang...) and the normal land area of Chinese provinces are comparable (or even larger than) with the Russian counterparts. There also a gap of cultural differences between these provinces (like Xinjiang follows Central Asian culture, Tibet follows Buddhism and Guangdong uses some sorts of Vietnamese traditions...). I didn't even cited SARs. Kys5g talk! 12:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The PRC is among the most unitary states possible. The devolved local governments are entirely the legal mandate of the national government to create, expand, or abolish. There is no constitutionally enshrined balance of both local and national governments, which is what federalism is.Remsense诉 12:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

text: I think you misunderstand what is meant by "unitary state". Autonomy (which is, in reality, very nominal) of certain regions does not necessarily equate to a federal or devolved structure. TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 18:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unitary or federal?
Talk:Solved game

message: Some time ago, an inconsistent, unreferenced, second definition of weak solution was added - "That is, produce at least one complete ideal game (all moves start to end) with proof that each move is optimal for the player making it."  Contrary to this claim, it is in general possible to have an optimally played example of a game, an (indirect, perhaps) proof that the example game is optimal, but no strategy for playing a position that does not occur in the game, so this claimed alternative definition is not appropriate. Elroch (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved this new section to the bottom of the page, as is traditional here.  About the removal, I don't understand your objection (to me, the two phrases appear to say the same thing) but I also don't see the removed text as particularly beneficial so I have no problem with your removal. --JBL (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  My objection to the unsourced claim is stated in the sentence starting "Contrary to this claim" above. The deleted criterion seems obviously much weaker than the exhibition of practical strategies (as achieved for checkers, for example). Note that the difference is a matter of practicality. I can describe an algorithm to play chess optimally as white or black - construct a 32-piece tablebase and play according to it - but this is not practical to execute. If the only information in a solution is the value of the game, there can be no distinction between the definitions. Thus the difference can be practical rather than mathematical. Elroch (talk) 15:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition of weak solution

message: The paragraph starting with "Despite their name, many game theorists believe that "ultra-weak" proofs are the deepest, most interesting and valuable" contains wrong information. According to their definitions, a "strong" proof will always count as an "ultra-weak" proof, so that sentence as written is trivially false. I believe that paragraph is trying to say that a non-constructive proof is deeper and more insightful than a proof constructed by brute-force search, even if the first is ultra-weak and the second is strong. If that's the case, it should be changed to say that. But since that paragraph is already marked with a "citation needed" tag, I believe it should be simply removed unless a source for that argument is found. RRM (talk) 01:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: "ultra-weak" proofs are not the deepest and most interesting

message: Just wanted to provide some context to my previous edit (first day contributing to a wiki articles).
In alignment with revision 1057486730 of the main Kalah page, I have removed reference to original research and a computer program by Mark Rawlings. These contributions did not comply with Wikipedia's No original research policy. :(
I'd like to encourage Rawlings to publish his research in solving Kalah variations. I believe his work is interesting and could be very valuable. The crate catsby (talk) 04:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kalah
Talk:Arwen

message: Why is this sentence
 Éomer of Rohan said that the Lady Arwen was fairer than the Lady Galadriel of Lórien, but Gimli son of Glóin thought differently.
in the middle of her background, when it's discussing her genealogy? It'd be better placed at the beginning of that section, then move on to her heritage, then out to the next paragraph.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:547:A00:6450:D63:DA38:F58C:B7FB (talk) 07:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd placement in the 'background' section.