lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Michael Hardt

message: I have never come acros a more unified and biased overt effort at censorship than this "Group of 88" issue. So many people on so many pages for years pleading for ANYTHING to be admitted, and rampant abuse by biased editors using their authority to stamp out as much as possible. Read any article from this date, 5 years after the event, about either the continuing lawsuit or or related news and the betrayal by the Duke faculty is still a hot button issue. If anything has ever been notable, it's this story, yet in the "NPOV" "nuetral" Wikipedia you can see it has been intentionally smothered for years, evidence in the years of debate on the talk pages. Still, no mention of this international news 5 years and running controversy on this page. I am disappointed Wikipedia, you have shown your true bias, and are incapble of resolving to be truthful. Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 08:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I frankly don't understand why someone keeps editing out Hardt's involvement in the Group of 88. Surely advocating for communism in the 21st Century(given the almost incomprehensible body count that can be attributed directly to communist regimes) is more embarrassing than trying to use the press to convict three innocent individuals before the conclusion of their trial.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.101 (talk) 01:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Group of 88 involvement still censored by biased Wikipedia editors

message: This book is not praised as communist manifesto of 21th century by 'some' except themselves. The reference is to a Zizek article, which concludes that the book fails in this endeavor.
This is a clear mistake and should be removed. This is so much graver as it is among the first sentences.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dakolawski (talk • contribs) 22:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not praised as communist manifesto of 21th century 

message: Hardt's website contains a good list of his publications that could be added to this page: http://michaelhardt.org/?page_id=3198. Additionally, interviews and other pieces are available to draw from in revamping the biography section if someone is interested. For example, this piece 'How to Write with Four Hands' is an account of his relationship with Toni Negri: http://michaelhardt.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/How-to-Write-with-Four-Hands-Toni-80th.pdf  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeyvandernaald (talk • contribs) 14:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography & Biography Update(s)
Talk:Bhagat Singh

message: ===Scholarly text books===
*
* 
* 
* 
*More coming
===Scholarly monographs===
*
* 
*  
*
* More coming
===Scholarly journal articles===
*
===Moffat===
* 
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fowler&fowler's [[WP:RS|RS]] employing "charismatic" in a short description  

message: * 
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Moffat

message: Should the descriptor "charismatic" be used in the first lead paragraph, and if so, where? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC on the use of "charismatic" in the lead

message: *As long as appropriate detail is added to the body, Option 2 per my comments above; otherwise option 4. I feel that there is enough sourcing (see above section) to justify its inclusion in the lead per WP:LEAD and WP:BALASP, but I do not think the first sentence (per MOS:FIRST) is the appropriate place, and that placing a descriptor like "charisma" next to the information about ideologies and "electrifying" a movement helps the flow of the prose. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: *The current lead paragraph says "" This is an improvement over mentioning this in the very first sentence, but only draws more attention to the term  which has some of the same issues as "charismatic". "Electrified" is nice and succinct, but it's also pretty ambiguous, which was also a big part of my original issue with 'charismatic'. I think this and other problems would be much easier to address if the lead were a proper summary of the body of the article. Grayfell (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: India's struggle for independence was a multi-faceted one and thus there were many more factors, including a factor of mutual understanding, that prompted to a 'successful' freedom. Only this concept and statement of 'the Indian National Congress's nonviolent but eventually successful campaign for India's independence' is over-simplification and unlooked-for. 2409:4060:2E12:7CEB:0:0:7548:5914 (talk) 09:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...the Indian National Congress's nonviolent but eventually successful campaign for India's independence.[9]
Talk:Henri de La Tour d'Auvergne, Viscount of Turenne

message: often called simply Turenne - in what sense and in what contexts?  --  Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Just "Turenne"?

message: Please see Talk:Henry III of France#Why the anglicized "Henry"? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Henri versus Henry 

message: I have tagged this article with  because it relies almost entirely on the Chisholm source. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliance of a single source 

message: Recently the information that Richelieu was a patron of Turenne has been added to the lead section. The 1911 encyclopedia Britannica as well as Longueville state that Richelieu didn’t trust Turenne and sabotaged his career. On top of that the lead section is not supposed to have sources but instead should be a summary of the article, where citations should be located. I would like to keep to Wikipedia guidelines and remove the information from the lead section. Whether the information should be added in the main body of the article should be discussed here as I’m not fully certain it should. NatriumGedrogt (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richelieu
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/Proposed interim policy for Honorific prefixes

message: I suggested this interim policy at the on-going ratification poll after it became obvious that the last round of debates and polls failed to bring agreement on the issue. So far, users Mackensen, John Kenney, Whig and Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (on his talk page) have expressed general support.
My idea for moving the stalemate on this issue forward is to research, collect and digest information about honorifics and how and when they are used in various kinds of sources, occasions and places. Another useful thing would be an overview of how the issue developed on Wikipedia and what kinds of arguments users on both sides of the issue used to advance their viewpoint. 
Although the recent controversy was concerned primarily with styles, I believe that the study should include all honorifics. The recent poll has shown that many people don't understand the fine differences between between various kinds and flavours of honorifics and their use, and we certainly don't know enough about how it works and what it means in different countries and cultures. I'll readily admit that I'm baffled. And of course, styles are often used in conjunction with other honorifics, so any study of styles would really be incomplete without them. 
My hope is that by learning more about honorifics, we will come to agree on more issues relevant to this guideline, and just maybe we'll manage to agree on what its final text should be. For this work to be respected as neutral and benevolent, we need contributors from both sides of the debate. If we manage to write a common proposal, there's a fair chance that community will support our argument. If not, we'll have plenty of material for several good articles. If we succeed in carrying out a common project about an issue we seriously dissagree about, and do it in a civil and collegial manner, that we'll be an achievement in itself.
The project will require a lot of research, sifting, pruning and other grunt work. We all have do things in real life and this will take a considerable amount of time. If several contributors from both sides of the debate are willing to help, I'll set up the page for the project and try to invest as much time as I can afford to. Zocky 11:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this proposition. I really wish we had a clear solution for styles, but as we don't already, I think this is a good way to go until we can all agree. This should satisfy both sides (for now), and we can buy some time to make a final decision. --Dejan Cabrilo 07:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I tried to address your concerns on your talk page. I hope we can work it out so that you find it acceptable. Zocky 11:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Help needed
Talk:Alexander Hore-Ruthven, 1st Earl of Gowrie

message: His appointment as Governor-General must have been approved by George V in 1935, but by the time Gowrie was sworn in as G-G on 23 January 1936, George V had died (three days earlier, on 20 January) and Edward VIII was now king.  Would the appointment have needed to be confirmed by the new monarch, or was the previous appointment sufficient?  Hypothetically, could Edward have countermanded his father's appointment before the swearing-in and asked for a new recommendation from the Prime Minister? --  JackofOz (talk) 06:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You might check the London Gazette or similar to find the date of appointment - presumably by warrant. If the warrant and swearing are the same then it could have been altered. AllsoulsDay (talk) 11:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appointment 

message: I've raised a question about the date he was created 1st Baron Gowrie.  It's at Talk:Governors of New South Wales#Date of Lord Gowrie's barony.  
Rather than splitting the responses over 2 pages, please reply at that page rather than here.  Thanks.  --  JackofOz (talk) 04:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of his barony 
Talk:Roman Catholic Diocese of Hong Kong

message: Should the title of this article be changed to "Bishop of Hong Kong Diocese of the Catholic Church"? The Anglican Church in Hong Kong and Macao is a province and has an archbishop.  — Instantnood 07:45, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
:Note: The above message was submitted  before this page was moved . — Instantnood 20:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: Is the Catholic Diocese of Hong Kong still nominally subordinate to the Archdiocese of Canton? — Instantnood 20:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know the answer specifically, but I can tell you that if, as the article states, the diocese reports directly to the pope, then it is "exempt" from being a "suffragan" diocese, that is, one which is subordinate to an archdiocese.  The article on diocese needs to be expanded:  currently, archdiocese and metropolitan archdiocese both redirect there, which isn't particularly helpful!  Laura1822 06:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: I have added a lot of historical information I gleaned from the Diocesan website (which has a timeline of historical events) about the pre-diocesan history;  I also copied the article in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia.  I have cleaned it up, but it still has a long way to go.  Please help, especially regarding placenames and wikilinks.  I'm not very familiar with Hong Kong (though I just learned a lot!).  Also, there is very little about the present diocese, so that's ready for expansion!  Laura1822 06:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help please 
Talk:Teletraffic queuing theory

message: This should not be merged with queuing theory. Teletraffic queuing is an important topic and should remain seperate.
:Agreed. Queuing theory is an important mathematical subject with plenty of content itself (although not yet present in the article). The queuing theory article would suffer from clutter to do with PSTNs. If any change is to be made to this page, I would suggest that it should instead be moved to an article about PSTNs - there's not a lot of teletraffic queuing theory here! reetep 13:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Talk:Raoul Villain

message: Attention please! The correct date is July 31, 1914 not 31 august 1914.
Er. The French Wiki says that he has been executed in September 1936, some months after the beginning of the Spanish Civil War  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.2.41.30 (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Somehow the article fails to mention that Villain murdered Jaurès in Paris. And I agree that it was 31 July 1914. Dick Kimball (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jaurès's assassination 

message: Is he the source of the word "villain"? 69.125.134.86 (talk) 19:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Villain"?
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Proposed interim policy for Honorific prefixes/archive

message: *Honorific titles should not be prefixed to a subject's name; however, honorific titles should be discussed later in an article (or the introduction). Example:
*:Joseph Alois Ratzinger, now known as Benedict XVI, is the apostolic monarch of Vatican City and acquired the title His Holiness... on April 19, 2005.
*If honorific titles are allowed to be prefixed to a subject's name, there should be no problem with: 
*:Dear Leader Kim Jong-il, chairman of North Korea... Adraeus 08:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adraeus' thoughts
Talk:A Song for ××

message: Renaming to fit Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Album_titles_and_band_names gren 09:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename
Talk:Duty (album)

message: Renaming to fit Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Album_titles_and_band_names gren 09:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:D-Company

message: D-Company though not a corporate enterprise , does exist and has wide scale operations according to Indian Newspapers . I think the article must be kept . (Comment left by Guptadeepak (talk • contribs)
:Please sign your comment. Also, read the article as it is now. It claims D-company to be a real company. It is a mob based group, and NOT a real company. Claiming it to be a company and citing news papers as sources doesn't count as facts. It should be either modified to show facts, or deleted. --Ragib 11:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I am work with you Jagdish117 (talk) 06:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: c to c me 106.216.136.74 (talk) 12:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

text: Hello I am work vith you 2402:8100:27B3:7D0F:0:8:7053:BE01 (talk) 04:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am work with you 

message: Don Prakash shete (talk) 11:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don 

message: Assalam 0 Alaikum...Bhai kase hen ap Mujhe pta ha Meri bt aptk ni ponche gi lakin jb b apko msg mile apna beta smajh Kar yad krleay ga Mujhe bhot khoaish ha apse milne ke khiyal rakhne ga apna Allah apne hifazat ma rakhen 111.88.200.254 (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  D.Company 

message: I am a student.... And I want to work with you.......Need Dawood Sir Pleasure 188.48.247.214 (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  I Am Work With.......... I am a Big Fan of Dawood Sir 

message: I want money 2409:408C:1D9F:A24D:8901:D390:B311:1329 (talk) 08:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don 

message: ￼WHAT happen@Mintu Debnath (Golden Future) 2409:408C:1D9F:A24D:6CD1:1B1C:D526:C0FB (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bro
Talk:South Staffordshire (UK Parliament constituency)

message: A now-deleted article/redirect, South Staffordshire postponed poll, 2005 was merged into this article. The old article, with complete history, is available at Talk:South Staffordshire (constituency)/South Staffordshire postponed poll, 2005.
----
Why is this page at "South Staffordshire (constituency)"?  Isn't the constituency called "Staffordshire South"?  Either the page name or the introduction is incorrect.  Joe D (t) 09:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: nm, I have the answer.  Joe D (t) 09:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Rayment says that Staffordshire (UK Parliament constituency) was divided into north and south divisions.  These must have been much larger than the present constituency, however there appears to be no article on that, so I ahve redirected it here.  There are other cases of a constituency that is abolished and then reconstituted with the same name but a different area, so this does not seem inappropriate, but ti makes this article a stub.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hansard gives the name as Staffordshire Southern from 1832-68. Obviously this was a completely different area - more or less what the name suggests - the southern half of Staffs. The present South Staffs roughly corresponds to the South Staffs District in local government terms - a very different thing.Sjwells53 (talk) 09:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  previous constituency 

message: The article is currently ragged for a graph to be deleted, apparently as a copy-vio.  The associated comment makes it clear that no such issue arises: see .  Peterkingiron (talk) 09:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: graph

message: Checking the Hansard list for Staffs Southern at  shows the 1835 by-election info has come out wrong. I'm not hugely expert with wiki tables, so I'd appreciate help in getting it right. In fact Littleton was elected at the Feb 1835 general election, along with Wrottesley, both Whigs and both local landowners. Shortly afterwards, the new Whig administration elevated Littleton to the peerage, as the first Baron Hatherton, making it impossible for him to continue as a member of the Commons. So the by-election in May replaced Littleton with Goodricke, while Wrottesley was unaffected. Hope someone will check whether I'm right and know how to get a reliable result with the table. Sjwells53 (talk) 10:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: MP wrong
Talk:Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology (Singapore)

message: There are two pages for IMCB, one seems upper case on lower case (Institute of molecular and cell biology). Can you delete the lower-case or forward/merge the two pages? -- 202.6.241.62 09:50, 17 May 2005
:I have merged the two articles as requested by the anonymous contributor above. The two articles had different descriptions of the location, and it isn't clear to me if the two are just different descriptions or different places. I've used the one from the older article, but this needs checking by someone with local knowledge. -- Chris j wood 16:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This request has resulted in the same anonymous contributor as above adding both location paragraphs from the two different articles. So we now have an internal inconsistency in the article; I have added the  tag in the hope of attracting someone able to clear up this inconsistency. -- Chris j wood 18:59, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Talk:Bastinado

message: I recently read a statement by some doctors that "shocks" throughout the body was a common consequence of falaka/bastinado; could anyone comment on whether this is related to nerve damage, bone damage, soft tissue damage, swelling or bones pressing on nerves? Along with some information about how much it takes to cause it (as it is still being used as a punishment in various places) and whether it is permanent? Thanks. Zuiram 20:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Consequences

message: Whether female or male, it is humiliating, in the Middle East, to bare one's soles, especially in the Arabic culture, where it is an insult to bare the soles of your feet to anyone.
So why is this ugly image in this article? I find the written description enough for anyone's imagination to be able to work out the rest; I'm removing it. - Shoejar 08:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Edit: Actually, it would be better if someone could find a more appropriate replacement.) - Shoejar 09:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The image was neither ugly, nor inappropriate, although it might have been useful to show the results. Is there any reason why I should not restore the image? Zuiram 20:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: Both the external Links to Youtube point to the same piece of footage. I believe the authenticity of said footage should be checked and at least one if not both of the links should be removed.
--84.149.1.103 00:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable External Links
Talk:Head (Unix)

message: Why was the note about sed making head superfluous deleted? This is basic Unix design.
Head was a rather obvious mistake someone that didn't understand Unix made, I think it's important to point out that it dosn't fit on the Unix philosphy and that
there is a more correct and powerful alternative that is recomended instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lost.goblin (talk • contribs) 
:head(1) is a very common utility. It is not superfluous just because Plan 9 folks are design elegance purists. jni (delete)...just not interested 08:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Head _is_ superfluous
Talk:Do Make Say Think

message: Nice job on uploading the same album image that was already in it's own album page. 20:49, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I hadn't seen that. It's already marked for deletion. Paulo Oliveira 08:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: I have here on my computer "the whole story of glory"? Japanese only maybe? more of a best of than anything, but a live track and one i didn't recognise? 195.137.110.134 (talk) 10:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  discography incomplete 

message: the last link in the external links section leads to a 404 error  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.20.246.195 (talk) 09:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  broken link 
Talk:Patrick McDonnell

message: Mutts lieks the Big Lebowski.  (Comic for 5-28)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.248.9 (talk) 02:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The redirect Art (picture book) 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.  🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Art (picture book)]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]