lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Gasoline

message: The existing reference [37] comes from an untrusted site on Wikipedia. Instead of deleting the site, I inserted another rationale that guarantees the same content. The news on the site uses appropriate references, which are sufficient to be used as a basis. Existing references are based on SCRIBD, and the reason why this site is wrong can be found in the following framework. WP:RSP. Kloyan.L (talk) 07:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [37] source change 

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: speedily uncontroversially closed per WP:SNOW. Paintspot Infez (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Gasoline →  – Lots of the world calls it petrol. We should have both words in the title to avoid confusion. No one else has suggested this yet. Sure some articles use different spellings like color instead of colour or litre instead of liter but that doesn't cause confusion in the way that gasoline or petrol does, which are completely different words, not merely spelling variants. Alternatively gasoline, petrol or gasoline or petrol Marsbar8 (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding something the nominator later added, while it is true that gasoline and petrol are different words, petrol is is mentioned in the opening sentence and on the same line gasoline is. This should be enough for anyone with basic reading comprehension to avoid being confused meaning we don’t need to add petrol to the article title to deal with the possibility of confusion.--65.93.193.235 (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Further, :Petrol is already a redirect to :Gasoline, so a simple search will return the correct article. General Ization Talk   22:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 7 August 2023
Talk:Governor-General of Australia

message: A few of the refs in this article go straight to the constitution, which seems to me to smack a bit of 'original research'. It certainly qualifies as a primary document.
3 of the refs link to the web site of the "Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy", which does not seem to me to be likely to be an impartial source.
There are some other generally flaky bits of content here. 
I've just done a couple of minor copy-edits &c, and will come back later to do further work. Dinkenfunkle 12:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some issues 

message: Should we add to the article the popular acronyms GOVGEN and GGAUS we use to refer to him? 203.46.132.214 (talk) 06:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Got a reliable source that tells us they're popular? HiLo48 (talk) 07:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Never heard of them. ITBF (talk) 08:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we add the acronym in the vein of POTUS?
Talk:God

message: We have had a draft on the concept of the Godhead stewing for about seven years now. It's time to finish it. Cheers! BD2412 T 14:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Draft:Godhead]] 

message: section Specific Characteristics, under Title, first paragraph: the paragraph starts by invoking "Judeo-Christian tradition", and two sentences later, says:
"Throughout the Hebrew and Christian Bibles there are titles for God, who revealed his personal name as YHWH (often vocalized as Yahweh or Jehovah)."
as God's name is not vocalized in Judaism, I think this should be changed. a very easy change would be something like:
"(often vocalized by Christians/in Christian tradition as Yahweh or Jehovah)."
but I think a better change would be to not refer to "Judeo-Christian tradition"* and instead separate Jewish tradition and Christian tradition as Islamic tradition is separated in that section
I'd be happy to write the two separate sections, but I don't have access to the referenced sources.
*just click/tap "Judeo-Christian" in that paragraph for reasons why referring to "Judeo-Christian tradition" ought to be avoided 1faefox (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2024
Talk:Book of Genesis

message: I have reverted an edit which is thoroughly WP:FRINGE, i.e. pseudohistory. tgeorgescu (talk)  13:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's totally fine. Thanks for keeping up with these edits and reverting when necessary. Hist9600 (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

text: Thank you. Another IP, possibly the same person, had added the same information yesterday, and I had to correct it. It seems someone may be actively watching the page to insert these dates. Ltwin (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, both geolocate to Adelaide, Australia. tgeorgescu (talk)  16:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert 

message: I just noticed and removed the following from the Composition section: 
After checking the article out, I believe this is a misreading of the article. The study authors were attempting to use biblical evidence to determine historical fluctuations in the Dead Sea levels. I don't think they are making definitive statements about when biblical books were actually composed. I could be wrong, however, so I'm leaving this here for other editors to evaluate. Ltwin (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead Sea study and date of composition

message: — Assignment last updated by Keegancroteau12 (talk) 04:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Criticism as Praxis

message: In saying "" does this require more subtlety?  Sure, Gen.1-11 is mythological, as discussed well in its "primeval history" article.  That's basically fine. But Gen.12-50 has very different genre characteristics; indeed the word "myth" never appears in the main body of its "ancestral history" article.
So isn't the statement about the whole book "" too blunt in not distinguishing the different genres across the primeval/ancestral divide?
Note: I'm basing this on the summary in the article lead.  But the myth-description in the main body (section "Genre") has the same over-generalisation problem, so it's probably better to start from there, then to reflect an appropriate summary back onto the lead.
Feline Hymnic (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Subtlety is nice, but I believe the passage in question adequately characterizes the whole text, as the purpose throughout both the primeval and ancestral history halves is to explain and interconnect the origins of the world and the Jewish people within it. Remsense诉 16:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does the "myth" description need more subtlety?
Talk:German Empire

message: In the Infobox it mentions the name of the German Empire was "Deutsches Reich" in German. However, above in its introduction, it mentioned the German Empire in German was "Deutsches Kaiserreich". Unless I'm wrong, both would be correct, but in that case shouldn't both be side by side in both instances?
Thanks to anyone willing to answer. Sandjaar (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:COMMONNAME applies here. Displaying the two names side by side is clunky and adds minimal extra information, they are largely in free variation. Maybe there should be some additional consistency in how they are presented, but having them next to each other seems pointless. Remsense聊 17:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

text: These terms are not equal and are properly used in this context, throughout 1871 to 1945 Germany had the same official name, Deutsches Reich, though in English the official name used was "German Empire" until 1918 and "German Reich" onwards to 1945 (since the "Empire" translation denotes a monarchy). Today, German historiography differences the Imperial period by calling it the Deutsches Kaiserreich, since Kaiserreich indisputably means Empire (unlike Reich, whose usage depends on the context). Point is, Deutsches Kaiserreich is a modern German term to name the period, but Deutsches Reich was the official contemporary name used by the state in question. (See also the references and notes attached to the name Deutsches Kaiserreich in the lead.) Shrek 5 the divorce (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name in German
Talk:Overview of gun laws by nation

message: In the "Comparison" section, South Sudan, Yemen, and 39 states are shown in blue—meaning that they require a permit to purchase a handgun.
Recently, though. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Maryland Shall Issue v. Moore that the state's permit to purchase law is unconstitutional.  (Although her 7-day waiting period and state-police, background check laws remain in effect.)
Ought Maryland to be changed from green to blue on the bottom map?
00:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maryland following "Moore"? 

message: As of January 6, 2024, the GunPolicy.org website is no longer active. Going to it now redirects to a login page with the message, "This site has closed due to a lack of funding."
Therefore, all of the citations linking to pages on that site should be re-edited to include Internet Archive and/or ghostarchive links. 73.222.50.208 (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  GunPolicy.org Sources 

message: Hi,
Just noticed some inconsistencies in the colouring and the language of the comparison table, namely:
Az, Ar, Cr, Kz, Kg, Tj, Uk, Uy should be light green in the "good reason" column as they don't require a good reason for some guns, but not others (similar to how New Zealand is labeled now).
Also, in the "Personal Protection" column, the difference between "justification" and "proof of threat to life" is minimal, shouldn't it be a note under "justification"?
The Philippines' colouring scheme is out of whack in "Personal Protection", "long guns", and "hand guns", it should be yellow for "may issue".
For the USA, shouldn't the constitutionally protected sections ("Good Reason", "Personal Protection", and "Concealed Carry") be blue? As well, shouldn't "Open Carry" be blue as most states are permitless? "Fully Automatic" is also shall-issue as far as I'm aware, it just requires a tax-stamp and registration, however there is still the import ban.
Another things, maybe for the max-penalty column, dark red boxes should have white text for visibility?
Thanks. 2A02:2488:321B:A900:2B84:8705:3395:790D (talk) 08:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table discrepancies 

message: There has been a push to loosen gun control in Israel following the 7 October attack. I am unsure of the specific details, but if legislation was passed regarding gun control in Israel following 7 October, this article should be updated to reflect that. Thank you JohnR1Roberts (talk) 00:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand Israel Category
Talk:GNU Free Documentation License

message: The licence conditions are listed in the text. Can we add references to the GFDL text where the conditions can be found?Example: All previous authors of the work must be attributedGFDL, section 4. "MODIFICATIONS", lit B.--D-Kuru (talk) 11:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  References for Conditions 

message: In the section: == List of projects that use the GFDL ==
For the Last.fm bullet item: * Last.fm – artists descriptions are under GFDL
Instead of "artists descriptions", it should be one of the below:
 - artist descriptions
 - artists' descriptions
 - descriptions of artists
I would lean towards the first: artist descriptions.
Thanks. BackspaceSomethingElse (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I replaced it with your first suggestion, thanks. Jamedeus (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2024 - minor grammatical edit
Talk:Greater London/Archive 1

message: Someone should add an explanation of why did Margaret Thatcher abolish the authority, and why did Tony Blair reinstate it? -- SJK
:She abolished all the Metropolitan County Councils as well as the GLC at about the same time, mainly because people wouldn't elect Conservatives to them. While this is true, perhaps it isn't NPOV! :-) Arwel
::The London County Council was abolished for much the same reason. Inner London was Labour dominated and it was hoped that by including the Conservative leaning suburbs of Outer London the balance would change. Again this is not NPOV. MRSC 14:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal Abolition of greater London

message: The article says:
It contains 32 London boroughs (including the City of Westminster), which are effectively unitary authorities,
How can they be unitary authorities if there are two-tiers of local government. Surely this is a contradiction in terms?. G-Man 19:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Two-tiers of local government != Unitary authority
Talk:Gender and sexuality studies

message: Wikipedia is not a dictionary - personally I'm suspicious whether we can get a whole entry out of some of the words from that list. I left them on the page for now so keyword searches will find the page. Comments?
--
I was thinking of them as some topics to write pages in this area about. Maybe not all, but many of them could certaintly could be articles. Some of them already are articles, but some of these (e.g. AIDS) don't deal with the topic with the same emphasises as generally encountered in G&SS. G&SS tends to concentrate more on the social aspects of AIDS, for instance, than medical ones; especially as it effects gay people. -- SJK
Should this be renamed List of gender studies topics? —Ashley Y 23:49, 2004 Jun 25 (UTC)
Come to think of it, should this be a category instead? —Ashley Y 08:21, 2004 Jul 16 (UTC)
:Given that it is alphabetically sorted, a category would probably be the best, although I personally have come to hate these stupid things. A list as backupt might not be bad, either. -- AlexR 12:45, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm going to rename it unless anyone has any objections. -- TheMightyQuill 11:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible Move

message: I'm involved in the update and revision of the Gender Studies article and I was wondering should this page be merged with it.  I'm sensitive to the difference between the two fields but I would say that Sexuality studies has a had a major impact on Gender Studies as a field.  What would be the general opinion on merging this page into the Gender Studies page?--Cailil 16:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The content on this page is pretty weak. I would approve a merger, given that not much of this page makes it onto the Gender Studies page. - TheMightyQuill 22:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible merger - what do you think 

message: Many of these items don't seem to have to do with gender and sexuality studies, per se... and it seems like a pretty random list of things that are somehow related to gender and sexuality. I think it's impossible to list everything that has something to do with gender and sexuality... maybe we could limit the list to things that are more academic-y? like queer theory, queer studies, gender studies, sexuality studies, intersection theory (i'm hoping to improve that article soon... it's just a stub), I dunno... any thoughts?
Fokion 03:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Studies?
Talk:Garry Kasparov

message: The "country" parameter in the Infobox should NOT mention Croatia.  We are going with WP:CONTEXTBIO here.  The most recent earlier discussion of this is at #Russian_v._Azerbaijani. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationality, again 

message: "Kasparov was ranked world no. 1 for a record 255 months overall". I can't find a source for this. Actually the Wikipedia page it links to says 243 months. I didn't edit it because I don't know which one is correct. Bramentent (talk) 12:35, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, with a reference further down. The other Wikipedia article is incorrect, obviously. Thanks for posting about this Billsmith60 (talk) 11:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  World no. 1 for how many months?
Talk:Great Britain

message: 60% smaller is a meaningless statement, it's either 60% of the size or 40% of the size. 78.146.141.153 (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: - while '60% smaller' can only possibly mean 40% of the size, I have altered the wording for clarity. Tollens (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when does any country on the planet  define itself in reference to the percentage it is bigger or smaller than another? That sentence  comes across as a pointless  willy measuring exercise at best. 109.78.145.59 (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: These aren't countries, they're islands. It's fairly common to compare sizes of geographical entities. WaggersTALK 10:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Shouldnt be "40 percent" instead of "40 per cent" 2601:285:8000:1C8:2009:7344:160A:B17F (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No, "per cent" is correct. Put it down to WP:ENGVAR if you like - "percent" might be ok too but there's no reason to change it. 50% means 50 items for every 100 items, "100" is simply changed to "cent" so it becomes "50 per cent"; it doesn't suddenly become a single word. WaggersTALK 10:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2023 

message: I am trying to do research on the history of Great Britain, and I find it very hard to find out information on the late 1800s and early 1900s 216.251.143.50 (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll probably find the Victorian era article, and perhaps the Edwardian era article useful. If you have any specific questions you're trying to find answers for, I recommend asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities where there's a team of volunteer researchers ready to help you. WaggersTALK 13:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of Recent History 

message: Change the population count to 65,034,142 as that is the new data taken from the England and Wales Census 2021 and Scotland’s 2022 Census. Isitreallyharry (talk) 18:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2023 

message: The redirect England Island 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.  Rusalkii (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:England Island]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: There is a mistake in the article. 84.245.80.134 (talk) 05:50, 8 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) 05:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2024
Talk:Golden Rule

message: In the "Not to be confused with..." at the top of the article, is Golden Ratio really something likely to be confused? I guess any article starting with "Golden" should be added then. Nikolaih☎️📖 08:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Golden ratio? 

message: May I kindly ask the entry for Scientology to be removed as they’re not a religion. 
Firstly, they pertain persistently being one to continue to operate as the criminal organisation that they are (targeting psychologically sensitive people, then exploiting them financially and emotionally towards a subsequent debt dependency, persistent tax evasion, harassment and bullying of dissidents and former members, please also read on here the section under ‘The Hole’) so their religious association is a mere smokescreen (and for tax relief purposes in the US).
Further, only the Scientologists on the entire entry of religions are unable to give straight answers to fairly standard questions, such as: 
- what are your praying rituals?
- where are your places of worship?
Their inclusion here gives them a mere legitimacy they simply neither warrant nor deserve. Indeed, Wiki has banned them recently to edit their pages on here for repeatedly aggressively editing it online with their own policies, no?
Please consider,
Hal Kebabpunk (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Removal of Scientology 

message: THANKS YOU 2400:1A00:B1C0:656D:7D8D:E3F5:1DFB:4CF (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Golden Rule 

message: Hello! I noticed that the section for Abrahamic religions says to look at the article relating to it. However 1, that article is very broad and covers Abrahamic religions in general and 2, it makes no mention of the golden rule from what I saw. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 01:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abrahamic religions
Talk:Glagolitic script

message: 2nd para: 'On the other side, Svatopluk I followed the interests of the Frankish Empire and prosecuted the students of Cyril and Methodius.' 'Other side'  = Eastern church? In which case, why not say so? Robert P Connolly (talk) 12:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Reworked the sentence based on the Svatopluk I article's mention of the situation. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other side of what? 

message: @Jingiby
In the above paragraph you reverted my change to:
The term "Old East Slavic" works well for earlier manuscripts, but the upper cutoff is far from agreed upon. You can cite sources in favour of your choice, or sources in opposition, with many arguing for a "Middle Russian" in between etc. But none of this matters, because none of the manuscripts in question were written in East Slavic aside from marginal notes. They are Church Slavonic. If you have no further objections, please undo your reversion. Ivan (talk) 20:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank yo for this explanation, Ivan. Jingiby (talk) 02:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

text: General question: I can understand the cultural and political reasons for the conflicts between this and other scripts, but not why they arose. If some other linguistic group uses a different script, who cares, really? Jackaroodave (talk) 13:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old East Slavic
Talk:Granville, New South Wales

message: I am moving this page to Granville railway disaster. I daresay there are other interesting things to say about Granville, and there are other Granvilles, one each in France, Canada, North Dakota, Ohio and probably others, according to a quick google search.
Firstly, please, sign your name if you wish to comment.  Secondly, Granville deserves its own page as much as any other town on Wikipedia.  While the page may not have been fleshed out to its full extent, it certainly should not be moved.  JackWaffles 08:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I think there should be something about Comeng Granville here, because this was the main facility of Comeng from the 1930s to the 1980s. Does anyone else agree? 56KPK (talk) 05:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comeng Granville
Talk:Grammatical gender

message: Especially in the context of animacy, it is misleading to limit this description to one species.  As noted in the page for animacy, this describes the extent to which something is alive or the "aliveness". 2600:1700:FC80:5020:D85E:9C59:B5AB:E986 (talk) 04:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Humanness"  

message: — Assignment last updated by Bbalicia (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01