lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:George Clinton

message: Is it okay to move this article to George Clinton (disambiguation) and George Clinton (politician) here?? Any comments please explain with whatever you can. Georgia guy 19:42, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer that it stay the way it its. George Clinton (royal governor) of New York was an important historical figure and his article should be expanded beyond the stub that it is.  George Clinton (funk musician) seems to have a good size article, and a quick look at Google seems to put him ahead, for what that's worth.  In general, I feel that unless one choice is way ahead of the others in terms of its recognition worldwide, the simple name should itself be a the disambiguation page.  Even in the U.S. I'll bet that only a small percent of people know that George Clinton was a vice president or governor. Nonenmac 21:00, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, in the U.S. at least, the funk musician is much more of a household name than the former governor. --Delirium 13:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I think this page should remain as is.  While the former vice president is certainly more notable, there's no indication that more people would be looking for him than the musician. -- Reinyday, 16:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so sure that an obscure, former vice president from the late 18th--early 19th century is more notable. George Clinton the funk musician is notable enough to have his article moved to George Clinton. If we had a system that kept track of hits per article, believe you me the funk musician gets more hits. The new generations never heard of that vice prez; due to hip-hop and the Red Hot Chili Peppers though, they know about George Clinton (funk musician). Alexander 007 13:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:List of Presidents of the United States by place of primary affiliation

message: Harry Truman's middle name is S there is no period after it.
Hawaii needs to be added to the list of 'states without affiliation'.  Only 49 are listed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.217.61 (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Godhra

message: Placement of Godhra on the map is wrong.
asnatu 09:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong map

message: The intro says:
"Godhra is widely known in India and internationally for being the eye of the storm, which began with Godhra train burning on 27 February 2002, near the Godhra railway station."
What "storm" is it referring to in which Godhra was the "eye"? 72.93.195.137 (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eye of the storm? 

message: # Lands also have historical background like human beings. Perhaps name of the village and the values behind the name carries impressions and qualities of the village, who would not like his own native village? Everyone loves their village!
Also, the page needs to be more neutral. Additional recent changes have changed godhra a lot and should be included. 
Also, I think Godhra is now a district and so is dahod. Panchamahal district was broken into two a few years ago. Please verify this and change accordingly. 129.22.152.103 (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Completely irreleveant

message: Is there an actual history of the page? The page history as it stands currently is nonsensical and is more akin to a "trivia" section.Pectoretalk 19:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: Godhra is a town and originally the name came from gou which means "cow" and dhara which has two meanings: one in Sanskrit which means "hold" or "land" and the other in Hindi which means "flow". So, identically it means The Land of the Cow, a municipality in Panchmahal district in Indian state of Gujarat. It is the administrative headquarters of the Panchmahal district.
http://godhramagazine.com/
http://godhramagazine.in/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikiparmar (talk • contribs) 18:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Godhra Magazine
Talk:Strafgesetzbuch

message: Is this impoverished and orphaned fragment actually a subsection of Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch? --Wetman 20:07, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that is the civil law, this article refers to the criminal law. Valiantis 01:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone wrote that German prosecutors can 'prostitute' crimes against humanity etc. I have edited that.
EuroSoviets 11:32, 29 November 2007 (GMT)
StGB 32 should be commented. Unknown to many the right to self defense is extremely far reaching.
--87.162.222.77 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: extraneous dialogue

message: When exactly were these sections/paragraphs and provisions added into the Strafgesetzbuch? Did it happen during the Allied occupation, or after West Germany was established in May 1949? I'm trying to look through sources on the history of these criminal laws, and the information I come across appears to be quite fuzzy on this. 2601:8C:4500:4D00:51BD:6100:B5E9:651 (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  §§ 86, 86a, 130 StGB
Talk:Schatzkammer

message: A Schatzkammer or Treasury is a generic term for all such treasure hoards in display, not just the Habsburger Schatzkammer A Wunderkammer is a similar displayed collection, of natural curiosities. --Wetman 20:16, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: (First comment)

message: Schatzkammer can also just generically mean "treasury" but i thought that was mentioned in the article. i´ve heard that there are basically only 3 official Schatzkammern in the german-speaking area. although there seems to be one in Cologne Cathedral as well.. hm, we would have to set up a new article in that case.. Antares911 22:13, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  true
Talk:Nicholas Udall

message: As I have put notice on the article (Nicholas Udall), this should be merged with content from Nicolas Udall, but must wait as the page cannot be deleted for article history merging due to block compression.
Please do not copy-and-paste the information in the mean-time.
James F. (talk) 20:19, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I removed "paederast" from the header because that's not what Udall is historically important for, and in that context only smacks of sensationalism. His conduct at Eton and its consequences are more than sufficiently discussed, given the article's overall lack of detail. --Bobbnoxious2 (talk) 06:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Header Change 
Talk:Edgar Buchanan

message: My last edit summary for this article should have said "assessed for WikiProject Missouri". --TommyBoy (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit summary error

message: Get rid of the known today for playing Uncle Joe.  Most people today don't remember Petticoat Junction or any of the other shows in which he appeared as Uncle Joe.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C4:57F:E260:89BE:9D61:C2E8:D00D (talk) 04:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter if most, all, or some, people remember Petticoat Junction. JohndanR (talk) 05:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Known Today

message: Did Edgar Buchanan suffer a small stroke in the ten years or so before his death?  I've noticed in some of his performances during the 1960s and 1970s that he had a strange way of talking out of one side of his mouth, as if he had partial paralysis. — QuicksilverT @ 21:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: just my 2 cents.. but haaa no, simply a case of a cliche -talking out the side of one's mouth- manifesting into a character trait.. one never knew if one was being swindled, conned, or told a great fish story... 2602:304:CDAF:A3D0:6CA9:E58C:F65D:1591 (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earlier non-fatal stroke? 

message: The "Early life" section contains a template that begins with "This section's factual accuracy is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on Talk:Edgar Buchanan." 
I must be missing something, because I don't see any indication of what part of the section is being disputed. Can anyone clarify what the template refers to? Eddie Blick (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is being disputed? 

message: Someone needs to repair the TV chronology - the years are jumping around all over the place - 1954, 1952, 1955, 1953, 1956. It's a mess. 70.73.90.119 (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: TV chronology needs to repair

message: Religion 2601:3C6:4280:5F90:907D:5E5C:5893:B847 (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add a topic
Talk:Active radar homing

message: is "transciever" a typo? shouldn't it be "transceiver"? (clem 20:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

message: Active radar homing missiles have some of the best kill probabillities...
: I challenge that statement. Actually I think that radar homing missiles have pretty low kill proabilites, just look at the history of AIM7 and compare it to the AIM9. While radar homers have cought up they are still not that great. The low (compared to infrared or optical sensors) resolution, resulting from small seeker diameters and long wavelength, the active nature, the current trend of reduced radar signatures  and enhancements in ECM makes it comparably easy to decoy them and this won't change much in future (IMHO). But of course, you can prove me wrong with some qualified sources. - Alureiter 14:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Active Radar homing missiles can fly a lead pursuit intercept course instead of just follow it's target, because they can measure the target's velocity and direction of movement.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.202.111.55 (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Sparrow was a semi-active radar homing (SARH) missile, not active, so it's performance is totally irrelevant. - BilCat (talk) 03:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Best kill propablities?

message: Currently, the third disadvantage is listed as: These types of missiles with this mounted equipment are only effective in long range confrontations. I think this needs an explanation, because it sounds fishy to me. What distance is considered "long range?" 
Also, the Vympel R-27AE employs active radar guidance and should be added to the list. 97.125.51.63 (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two issues
Talk:De Plattfööt

message: Is this a vanity page? Seems to be not very big... MicahMN | Talk 20:55, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't vouch for whoever created the article, but the group is real and definitely notable. They appeared on TV and on the radio back when that still meant something. Rl 21:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Raqqa

message: The so called "Islamic State" is not recognized as a state by any country or international entity.  It is misleading to refer to Ar-Raqqah even as a de-facto part of a country called the "Islamic State" because the Islamic state is not a state or country.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.12.146 (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and the repeated adding of ISIS to the country section by some users comes very close to vandalism, in my opinion. Wackelkopp (talk) 00:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Islamic State" is not a state. 

message: I keep running into mentions of this same city with so many different spellings... WHY isn't there a single standard English language spelling for one single city in Syria that hasn't moved anytime recently?  Is there any way we could agree on a standard and just impose it on every item in "what links here"? Wnt (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The standard name is "Al-Raqqah". This is how it is literally transliterated from Arabic. "Ar-Raqqah" is a pronunciation of the name. In spoken Arabic, often the article "al-" is pronounced differently according to the word that it is describing. Thus instead of al-Sham, people could say "ash-Sham", or instead of al-Thawra, people could say "ath-Thawra" and the same goes for al-Raqqah. --Al Ameer (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basis for a single standard name? 

message: Ar-Raqqah is de-facto the capital of the Islamic State
:Control is mentioned in the last sentence of first paragraph of lead, but the way you are writing it as if its a real country is not right, and against consensus, so please stop. BollyJeff | talk 15:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not mentioned in the sentence of first paragraph of lead Ar-Raqqah is de-facto the capital of the Islamic State  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.99.81.149 (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there is arguably no such thing.  You are edit warring. You should leave the article as it was, and let consensus be reached here first before changing it. IP editor 145.129.95.114 has provided a nice compromise, let's go with that. BollyJeff | talk 15:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: The capital of the Islamic State

message: In the section "Control by Syrian Democratic Forces (October 2017–present)" there's a broken image template. I've attempted to fix the issue myself and even though the image template shows up when I do the preview, it appears as a broken text once I click to publish the changes. Elishop (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a missing bracket higher up in the page. I recommend turning on the Syntax Highlighter gadget in your Preferences in order to be able to find problems like this more easily.  – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken image template
Talk:Bonus Army

message: This has come up previously on this page, but it seems inaccurate to characterize this demonstration as an armed conflict. Would there be any objection to changing the infobox to ? Ibadibam (talk) 20:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing no objection, I have  the infobox per above. Ibadibam (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armed conflict? 

message: I'd like to see both sides of this question described. Most people who tell me (in New York) about the Bonus Army and MacArthur's role speak of tanks crushing unarmed men, etc. Shouldn't all these claims be sourced? 
And what about counterclaims? For one thing, there seems to be a dispute over whether MacArthur did or did not receive an order from Hoover not to cross a certain boundary (foreshadowing his well-documented disputed with Truman during the Korean War).
Can we please make a neutral paragraph which balances claims that Hoover twice ordered MacArthur to do such and such vs. assertions by so-and-so that the order was never received? --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Was too much force used to dispel the protesters?

message: Per this article, the participants used the term 'Bonus Expeditionary Force' while it was the media who used 'Bonus Army.' Might it show more respect to use the term the WWI vets used to refer to themselves as opposed to the term used by the media at the time? I'm sure it is a minor distinction, but it seems more appropriate. 'Bonus army' could be made to redirect in that case. Thoughts? I want a bear as a pet (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the article be titled "Bonus Expeditionary Force" instead of "Bonus Army?" 

message: The article states that only 2 members of the Bonus Army were killed, although I've seen the idea that a far higher number were killed be floated around. If someone could look into or correct this please do so. Bill3602 00:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Understated death count
Talk:Microbial ecology

message: I'm going to try and expand this entry over the next few days, please bear with me, and your comments are welcome !--PatVanHove 21:15, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Going to procrastinate by chipping away at this over the next few months. Can someone point me to a good model for structuring this? Estevezj (talk) 07:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Did I say months? I meant years.— James Estevez (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Model pages 

message: There's a similar article called Environmental microbiology.  I propose that the two articles be merged. CatPath (talk) 16:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I did some cursory reading and I can't find anything authoritative that states this explicitly, but my sense is that environmental microbiology (EM) can be thought of as a subset of microbial ecology (ME). In my understanding EM takes a more physiological or biogeochemical perspective, where ME aims to include that information within a broader view that incorporates the diversity, distribution, and abundance of microbes within a given ecosystem. I think EM should be incorporated into this article using Wikipedia:Summary style—and any information in EM that would fit better here moved over as well—rather than merging the two.— James Estevez (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine, except there's a serious problem with the EM article.  Most of it was copy-pasted from the cited references, and the editor who created the article refuses to go through the proper channels to document that he/she had permission to copy/paste for the cited books, though he/she claims that permission was granted. The EM article needs to be deleted and rewritten from scratch. I won't delete the EM article until someone gets a chance to insert a summary of the article over here.  But that needs to be done soon since articles with this sort of copyright violation are supposed to be deleted immediately. CatPath (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no need to delay any further on my account. I have a local copy, but I'm not going to attempt a direct merge on account of the COPYVIO.— James Estevez (talk) 01:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: — Assignment last updated by Ofrimpong1 (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Ecology
Talk:Phallaceae

message: Right, so I guess this is not going to mention anything about what it looks like and what its classification was derived from. AllStarZ 03:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

message: No one in the world notices the web or net that comes out of the web. What is that web?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.207.84 (talk) 06:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stinkhorn's erupting web? 

message: Add a etymology section. Jidanni (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: — Assignment last updated by Gonet99 (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Plant Behavior 2022
Talk:Horseshoes (game)

message: éThis website is coolƏ  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.242.106 (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This website 

message: From the article, I cannot tell whether the second shoe has to be within six inches of the stake in order to qualify for a second point.  (Obviously, it has to be closer to the stake than any shoe of the opponent.)  —Quantling (talk | contribs) 18:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second point 

message: That's the quote, really? For over thirty years I've always heard it as "Close only counts in horseshoes and grenades" not merely just horseshoes. The one being about scoring in the game, the other being about the effectiveness of the weapon. - annonymous 4/9/2012 5:02 AM EST  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.5.105 (talk) 09:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "Close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades and brain surgery."  50.202.81.2 (talk) 02:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about brain surgery, but the modern version is "close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and atom bombs".  It's probably quite silly to even mention the saying.  But then, this article needs a lot more cleanup than that... Huw Powell (talk) 19:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Close only counts in horseshoes" 

message: What's the BOH Cup?  That section has existed citation-free since 2007, and Google finds no relevant hits.  Rojomoke (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with the section being deleted. Ibadibam (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

text: 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 (non-admin closure) ‡ The Night Watch ω (talk) 05:19, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

text: Horseshoes →  – Moved without discussion all the way back in 2005.  I'd recommend that Horseshoes be a primary redirect to Horseshoe. 162 etc. (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  BOH Cup?
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Creedmoor chassidism

message: The only people who would want to delete this 
are antisemites and the breakaway Satmar mentioned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.174.211.38 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 10 April 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Or anyone who has read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Curps (talk • contribs) 21:44, 10 April 2005 (UTC)
Talk:Military history of Birmingham

message: would this page be easier on the eye if it were formed in chronological order? Any one care to have a go? Nick Boulevard 21:52, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

message: The material from Walter Showell's Dictionary of Birmingham is on Google Books (). It clearly should be used as a reference, not verbatim. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup required
Talk:Liberal Christianity

message: After reading the article and perusing the discussion in the talk page archives, I decided to re-write the section on "exegesis" and ended up renaming it "Liberal Protestantism" because that is all it deals with. I'm proposing we give the article a revised outline with sections for "Liberal Catholicism" and "Liberal Orthodoxy" (if there is indeed such a thing) as well. I have contributions I can make for Liberal Protestantism, but the other branches of Christianity will need to be taken up by other editors. Ltwin (talk) 02:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Article revision

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Liberal theology. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 9#Liberal theology until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  ItsPugle (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Liberal theology" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: When the article says that liberal Christianity grew out of "Enlightenment rationalism and romanticism of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries", should it not add "respectively" after the words centuries? My understanding is that die Aufklarung, or the Enlightenment, was in the eighteenth century, romanticism was a nineteenth century movement. YTKJ (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: A slight revision
Talk:Handle (disambiguation)

message: Maybe this should be handle (grip).  All of the other definitions seem to be using the grip version as a metaphor.
207.159.180.63 (talk) 03:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly! And having not been challenged for four year, I request the moving. --109.53.245.17 (talk) 09:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments about the article title