lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Therīgāthā

message: Some remarks that apply more generally, and if someone wants to copy them elsewhere they can. First, all statements that the Buddha taught such-and-such should be deleted from Wikipedia or rephrased. There are sceptical scholars who question all such, saying there is insufficient evidence to establish them.
Second, attempts to present the Buddha as fashionably feminist are usually slanted. One must be very careful to maintain a neutral point of view here. According to the Pali Canon women can be arahants but not Buddhas. The Buddha, in authorizing nuns, says they will weaken the teaching and shorten its lifetime, and lays down rules that thoroughly subordinate nuns to monks.  The Canon indeed includes material of female authorship, but it also includes some incredibly misogynistic material, most notably the Kunalajataka. Peter jackson 11:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Austerlitz -- 88.75.64.150 (talk) 21:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's one of the Jataka tales. Peter jackson (talk) 10:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]
Talk:Mid-Kent line

message: The article, whose title is "Mid-Kent Railway", starts with "Mid-Kent line" in bold and says that was constructed by "The Mid Kent Railway". It's its use of '-' that is inconsistent.--SilasW (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of the Article 

message: Although called "Mid-Kent Railway" and (see above) mentioning "The Mid Kent Railway" the article seems more about some tracks which apparently should not be called the "Mid-Kent Line" rather than about a railway company. Some retitling and a new article might be appropriate.--SilasW (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The correct name for the route according to both Quail maps and the definitive railway publication (the Network Rail Sectional Appendix) is the Mid Kent Line, and I propose renaming the page as such. Fu Manchuchu (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which is the article meant to be about? 
Talk:West Australian Opera

message: This article has less number of citations kindly provide proper citations and try to improve article  according to Wikipedia policies and kindly, expand it and if you allow my self I can  certainly help you in expanding it. Thanks.-- Faizan Munawar Varya chat contributions 06:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Expanding and citations required 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.waopera.asn.au/about-wao/history/ and other pages of that site. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Talk:Dehydration reaction

message: -OH2+ ???
:Yes. Protonated hydroxyl. Double sharp (talk) 13:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Say what? 

message: Removed some nonsense, but haven't the time to move this article toward being trustworthy. Trust at WP comes from sources. The list of reactions is largely unsourced as a whole—how do we know it is representative of what an expert would present, that it does not contain poor or incorrect examples, or omit important ones? Various observations suggest, (a) that people presented what they could wikilink to or find a WikiMedia image to represent, and (b) that this compilation is an off-top-of-head (literally, stream of thought) WP editors' list.
In terms of glaring omissions, the examples of amide bond synthesis, and the relationship of this class to condensations are two clear things that any basic presentation should include—don't go now and add it, read on (for why I don't, in the the five minutes I have on this). 
In 2017, after more than a decade of time on chemistry articles, here, there is no excuse to continue to allow this sort of article composition of organic chemistry articles. Every advanced ochem book covers this subject, as do all the good undergraduate texts (e.g., Claden). No further content should be allowed in this article, unless accompanied by a valid and complete (verifiable) citation. And  say no to inserting any old happenstance class web page—yes only to good secondary or text sources. Enough of this WP:OR and just trust us writing.  
Until then, a reader with no experience in real chemistry should have no confidence that any sentence of this is what they should be reading on the subject. Get ANY good university gen chem, ochem, or biochem textbook, or any good online source, and start there instead. 73.210.155.96 (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote of little or no confidence
Talk:Ryan Davies

message: When did Ryan commit suicide?
There are two different dates - 1977 and 1997.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewelshboyo (talk • contribs) 22:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but the article is confusing. Ryan Davies died in 1977 of an asthma attack. His former comedy partner Ronnie Williams committed suicide in 1997. I am going to remove that line from this article, as it was also a source of great confusion to me. Both of these articles could use some improvement for clarity. I'll attempt it if I can find the time. Foomandoonian (talk) 12:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a BBC Wales documentary about the two on the 9th Jan 2012. Perhaps some more sourced information could be found there? Thewelshboyo (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suicide
Talk:Atomic carbon

message: How is this a dicarbene?? Isn't a carbene "a molecule containing a neutral carbon atom with a valence of two and two unshared valence electrons"? Atomic carbon has a valence of 0 and four unshared electrons.--Spmoura (talk) 05:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dicarbene 

message: This article seems to do a good job laying out the basic information about Atomic Carbon. It gives the basic information one should need to get a simple grasp on the subject after reading it. All of the links work, and all of the related links are credible articles. All of the information comes from reliable articles out of scientific books and journals that have been peer-reviewed. Given that a majority of this article is simply explaining scientific fact and where it originates, I find it to be a relatively unbiased article. Fordhuntington1 (talk) 02:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Evaluation
Talk:Welsh Church Act 1914

message: I have deleted your qualification "as appropriate": all relevant assets vested in the WCC, even those which were eventually to be returned to the Church in Wales: see s4 WCA 1914 as originally enacted. An "ecclesisatical office" would include the incumbency of a parish. The effect of the WCA 1914 was that all "church property" of the Church of England in Wales, which had formerly belonged the Vicar or Rector of a Parish (under the parson's freehold), or been held by a Dean and Chapter, or held by a Bishop (if it had not been already transferred to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners) was vested in the WCC. If it fell within certain categories (outlined in Welsh Church Commissioners) it was transferred to the Representative Body. The Church in Wales, when set up, therefore had much more centralised financial arrangements than did the C of E at the time (or probably still has). Do you agree with this interpretation of s 4 WCA 1914? Under s 4(2) even the chattels used for worship, or otherwise belonging to a church, vested in the RB on disestablishment. (I am unclear whether they vested in the WCC first, and were then technically transferred to the RB: that would require a closer reading of the WCA 1914).Ntmr (talk) 12:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vesting of assets 

message: I must question the blanket assertion that the WCA 1914 allowed the CinW to retain all glebe. All cathedrals, churches, church halls, parsonages, etc. certainly all vested in the Welsh Church Commissioners and were then transferred by them to the Representative Body of the Church in Wales (see section 8(1) WCA 1914). But s 8(1)(a)(vii) allowed the RB of the CinW to require the CCW to transfer glebe to the RB, but on the basis that they paid the market value for it. How can what is stated in the Article be consistent with the terms of the statute?
Although some land owned by a Vicar or Rector as incumbent might be a private post-1662 benefaction (and thus exempted from disendowment), I would generally think of glebe as land which has belonged to the church since before that date. Historically it was, after all, land which the vicar could farm personally. As a pre-1662 asset it would very much be the sort of property which the proponents of disestablishment thought the Church should lose.
The option to purchase would presumably be because some glebe might be land which was in practice enjoyed with the Church or with the parsonage.
I think the reference to glebe ought to be deleted, unless someone can explain why s 8(1)(a)(vii) of the WCA 1914 does not in fact mean what it appears to say.Ntmr (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retention of glebe
Talk:Pontypool

message: Very short article, does not appear to be independently notable, and I suggest merging it to this article. Rodhullandemu 21:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed and done. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal: [[:Pontypool Leisure Centre]] 
Talk:Hirwaun

message: Standard English pronunciation was removed here? Seems somewhat contentious. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standard English pronunciation
Talk:Caterham line

message: I have added a map, and removed the 'mapneeded=yes' from the TrainsWikiProject tag. Miner2049er 20:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: I would like to do some work over the next few weeks to bring this article up to a decent "C" class standard. (I have done this recently for Hampton Court branch line, Shepperton branch line, Tattenham Corner line, Epsom Downs Branch and Ascot–Ash Vale line.) Principally, I would like to tighten up the text, add a little more information and improve the referencing. Per WP:CITEVAR, would anyone object if I convert the reference format to use Template:sfn?
Thanks and best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made these changes. Mertbiol (talk) 12:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing style
Talk:Carlstad

message: As far as I remember, Copenhagen is normally estimated to have had a population of c. 10,000 in the 18th century. If this number also applied in the preceding century, Carlstad might have been even bigger than the Danish capital. However, Copenhagen's population in 1658-60 was probably larger than normally, probably with an influx of refugees and troops. Valentinian T / C 19:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparative size of Copenhagen 
Talk:Eastleigh–Fareham line

message: This article has no cited text at all, and its scope is better and more fully covered in Gosport and Cosham Lines of the LSWR and West Coastway line. It would be in accordance with wiki policies to delete it, but I think the best thing is to reduce it to a redirect. Afterbrunel (talk) 09:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now neither article is covered in glory. This one lacks references, the Gosport and Cosham one needs a thorough overhaul to bring it inline with WP:MOS and lacks focus; it doesn't have a first sentence or lead section that defines what the article about but wades straight into the history, most of which is (or should be) covered in the histories of the individual lines or the LSWR as a whole. I notice you've started to remove links to this article, changing them to links to the other - please don't do that. If you want to nominate this article for deletion, AFD is this way; but swapping links to one article that requires improvement to a different article on a different subject that is riddled with quality problems of its own is not helpful. WaggersTALK 14:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point of this article?
Talk:Eastleigh–Romsey line

message: This is the basis of a good article (although at present it has a critical banner across the top of it.) However Eastleigh to Romsey is just a hop skip and a jump, at 7 miles, and Romsey to Salisbury doesn't have a history article at all. (There is an article which includes Bristol(!), but it majors on the present day.) I wonder if this article ought to be extended to cover Eastleigh - Romsey - Salisbury. Afterbrunel (talk) 14:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extend scope?
Talk:Tripoli

message: There's a new Belgian band called Tripoli. They won the EA bandslam on JIMTV.
Tripoli is also a mineral, please create a page for the mineral tripoli --ShadowTale (talk) 23:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: There is full overlap in the contents of the pages. Tarablus is simply the Arabic form of the name Tripoli. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose merging [[Tarablus]] into this page
Talk:New Guildford line

message: There was more detail on the line and the services under the entry for Hinchley Wood than in this article (it was getting to a point where it was even linking to the station article to get information. I have copied some of the information here. It needs editing: there may be some NPOV against the services to weed out, balance or reference and the Old Rolling Stock paragraph needs to be broken up and the references converted. Anywikiuser (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information from Hinchley Wood 

message: This article says that Effingham Jn to Guildford is shared with a branch of the Sutton & Mole Valley Lines but that article, although its map shows 
a tremendous mileage of track beyond what it claims as the S & M V lines,
stops them at Effingham Jn.  That a service on line A continues on line B hardly seems to warrant including B in A.  How well are lines defined? Is there an official list? The S&MVL article mentions confusion apparently caused by different meanings for S&MVL.--SilasW (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sutton & Mole valley query 

message: The article says 660 volts but the infobox says 750 volts. Which is correct? I understand that the value is only a nominal one but the difference here is sufficient to be able to say that this is a contradiction that should be corrected. 87.75.117.183 (talk) 09:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  660 volts or 750?
Talk:South London line

message: Druce describes the route in detail, but it is from 1953. Does a more recent source exist? MRSC (talk) 07:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for route section
Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/BigHaz

message: User:BigHaz
run at Wed Feb 21 12:18:32 2007 GMT
Category:	8
Image talk:	1
Mainspace	3508
Talk:	248
Template talk:	122
Template:	2
User talk:	807
User:	161
Wikipedia talk:	22
Wikipedia:	1194
avg edits per article	1.95
earliest	08:33, 3 March 2004
number of unique articles	3114
total	6073
2004/3 	64 	
2004/4 	4 	
2004/5 	13 	
2004/6 	16 	
2004/7 	38 	
2004/8 	76 	
2004/9 	36 	
2004/10 	70 	
2004/11 	59 	
2004/12 	111 	
2005/1 	40 	
2005/2 	33 	
2005/3 	14 	
2005/4 	7 	
2005/5 	33 	
2005/6 	22 	
2005/7 	5 	
2005/8 	16 	
2005/9 	4 	
2005/10 	16 	
2005/11 	14 	
2005/12 	1 	
2006/1 	4 	
2006/2 	25 	
2006/3 	8 	
2006/4 	16 	
2006/5 	8 	
2006/6 	603 	
2006/7 	863 	
2006/8 	936 	
2006/9 	688 	
2006/10 	374 	
2006/11 	854 	
2006/12 	500 	
2007/1 	198 	
2007/2 	304 
Source - Anas Talk? 12:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Staines–Windsor line

message: Shouldn't the routemap be the other way up? ie with Staines near the top and Windsor at the bottom? This would better fit with the article title. EdJogg 00:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've redone it with BS5 and HBHF to show how its a branch. I think orientation is the right way up. Pickle 00:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, it's much less of an issue like that. I have revised the text around Staines further to better show the direction of trains at Staines. If you think this looks OK, I know of a couple more branch line maps that would benefit from the same treatment (hadn't tried it before).  -- EdJogg 09:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The idea (of the arrows) is great, but i can't see them (IE7, Windows XP, 1280x1024, etc), not sure how to rectify it really. Pickle 09:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That any better? They show up OK on my laptop now (IE6, Win2K, 1024x768) (They were a tad unclear before, but I wanted the smaller text if possible) - EdJogg 09:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not really. I really like the idea, are there any other icon type things (even image files) that could be used) that are bolder, while still being "normal" size or even "small size" text. Pickle 10:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Found some. Searched the image namespace for 'arrow' and found these after a couple of pages. Didn't think they would work when I viewed them 'large', but reduced down I think we'd be hard-pressed to find better. This method is crying out for a template though! EdJogg 10:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can see the current version now ;) Pickle 23:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Template  has now been created, based on this format, and is in use on this page. Will canvass opinions for enhancements at Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template before rolling-out anywhere else. EdJogg 08:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Routemap 

message: These three pages are very short and I thought it might be worth combining them to make one single Windsor Lines page.  What do you think?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.74.164 (talk) 12:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: EdJogg 19:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Reading-Waterloo; Windsor-Staines and Chertsey Branch to form one Windsor Lines page 

message: Was the line electrified at 750v? Isn't that a more recent higher voltage?--SilasW (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query re Voltage 

message: This station needs to be re-inserted.  Till today it was mentioned as a possible reopening for  Airtrack. It existed while the Windsor to Virg W chord was in use.  The template needs re-arranging to allow the word "Staines" to be level with its blob.--SilasW (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a new map, with St Hi Str and a few other details, waiting only for resolution of the next question.--SilasW (talk) 19:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Staines High Street
Talk:Chertsey branch line

message: Re-directed from Staines to Weybridge Line. Canterberry 23:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect

message: The 'mapneeded=yes' tage has been removed, a basic map has been added. Canterberry 23:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 'mapneeded=yes'

message: I would like to do some work over the next few weeks to bring this article up to a decent "C" class standard. (I have done this recently for Hampton Court branch line, Shepperton branch line, Tattenham Corner line and Ascot–Ash Vale line.) Principally, I would like to tighten up the text, add a little more information and improve the referencing. Per WP:CITEVAR, would anyone object if I convert the reference format to use Template:sfn?
Thanks and best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 10:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections here! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made these changes. Mertbiol (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing style
Talk:State of World Liberty Index

message: Making a comparison with the 2006 Freedom House's index and the corresponding State of World Liberty Index gives Hong Kong a third spot on the latter, but is omitted in the former. I also believe it is not valid to compare this index with that of other indices that are made by professionals. Finally, it should be duly noted that this index is extremely biased in favour of right wing ideological dogma.--Kimse84 (talk) 09:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism / comparison

message: According to the reference link and text within the page itself, New Zealand was first, but the table on the page lists the United States as first? What happened there?
Link to the reference I mention: https://patrickrhamey.com/saturday-research/2021/4/29/2021-state-of-world-liberty-index
2604:CA00:100:10DB:0:0:60:7DA (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  2021 ranking  

message: If that's from The State of World Liberty Index  (source 2) it's wrong. America isn't even close to the 1st place. 2001:14BB:AD:ED60:79E6:D11A:83DD:BBBC (talk) 07:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The ranking chart
Talk:British military aircraft designation systems

message: The references section mentions articles by a certain Gordon Wansbrough. That is an unlikely coincidence, because one major Author in the field of military aircraft is Gordon Swanborough. Is it a coincidence? Do we have a typo here? SrAtoz (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that Gordon Wansbrough-White is actually an author who has written about aircraft naming . Letdorf (talk) 22:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gordon who? 
Talk:Child development

message: The section on all the different theories and explanations of those theories seem very long and each have their own pages that go into detail about each theory. For example, Piaget's theories. There doesn't need to be multiple paragraphs explaining each stage and can be condensed down into a more simple summary, or list them with a short explanation of each like in the Erik Erikson section. The Development of Language and Communication section also could be its own article because of how long it is. Due to the length of the article it is very hard to read and gain knowledge from. Nellietwo (talk) 05:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Length 

message: — Assignment last updated by Zisha68 (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Psychology of Gender