lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Fort Langley National Historic Site

message: Just looked back to see what tag was removed in the previous edit to the placement of the BC project....which was the Military History Wikiproject.  Got me scratching my head a bit, as while most of the fur trade posts don't have a military history, or their history isn't primarily military, there are aspects of Fort Langley's role in local history that are decidedly military; repelling a Euclataws invasion/attack, and also the role of the Royal Engineers during the McGowan's War incident, and also in the survey of the original Ft. Langley at Derby (two miles downstreawm); still, not primarily a military history, and it wasn't a military establishment per se, though its history does have military aspects.  But then, if we applied it here, it would also apply at Fort Victoria, Nanaimo's bastion, Fort Rupert, Fort Kamloops, Fort Shepherd etc. - none of which were military forts, but which all saw battles/fortification needs.  Fort Vancouver ranks in MilHist, or should, because since the fur trade it's also been a US military installation, though.Skookum1 20:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hmmm MilHistory project?

message: I believe the fort was moved from Derby in 1838/9... I can't remember the exact date, but within a year, the whole "new" fort burned down, and they rebuilt again in the same place. So the storehouse, from the 1840s, still stands on the 2nd site. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 04:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Skookum, you've got your facts wrong. The fort was moved in 1838/9. It's well documented, because the fire in 1939 burned down the "new" fort almost immediately after it had been constructed. Then the rebuilt it again within a year. See here and here - TheMightyQuill (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's really darned odd because AFAIK it was Moody who moved the fort to the new location, and Derby was still called Fort Langley when it was renamed in 1858 to Derby; I think in Hauka's McGowan's War he comments that Fort Langley was still at Derby when Douglas sailed upriver because of the Fraser CAnyon War; I'll write him, in fact, and check; I'm pretty certain I saw it in Howay & Scholefield too.  The proclamation was in the then-fort's big house, but AFAIK it wasn't the same big house, but rather the old one at Derby....Skookum1 (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Company farm was established around the current site in 1839; HQ remained at what became Derby and it's because HQ was there that Derby became a boomtown during hte gold rush; there was no other reason for anyone to be there, in fact....Skookum1 (talk) 23:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm 100% on this one, Skookum. It's very well documented. Give the park a call, I'm sure they've got the details right. -TheMightyQuill (talk) 04:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The first fort at Derby Reach
Talk:Fort Lawrence (Nova Scotia)

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: Hello!
I noticed that this page (about the fort itself) and the community around the historical fort that exists today, Fort Lawrence, Nova Scotia. Because these article names are so similar, I was wondering if it would be useful to create a disambiguation page for these two articles? Ottawa03 (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Disambiguation Pages
Talk:Milo's Astro Lanes

message: One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s).  Infringing 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, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that 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.  VernoWhitney (talk) 12:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Talk:Prince of Wales Fort

message: The article says "the post was refounded a little way up the river."  Similarly, this site says "The company reoccupied the area in 1783, and built a new post about four kilometres up river."
Is the site of the "new post" the same as the present-day town of Churchill?   (Which is up the river, but also on the opposite side of the river.)  If so, it would improve the article to explicitly say so. 75.163.201.149 (talk) 04:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Site of the new post
Talk:Signal Hill, St. John's

message: Would it be useful to get statistics on the number of tourists that visit the site each year?Voicedisordersmegan (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Might also be useful to put in a description of where specifically it is in the cityVoicedisordersmegan (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Fort Saint Charles

message: The article refers to "A History of Western Canada". This may actually be A History of the Canadian West to 1870–71 (published 1939) by Arthur Silver Morton (1870–1945) who taught at the University of Saskatchewan.Denis (talk) 04:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct. My copy has no publication date. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 17:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible Reference
Talk:I Am... (Ayumi Hamasaki album)

message: Just to let you all know, the correct title of track 2 is "opening Run", not "opening run" or "Opening Run". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.59.222.22 (talk • contribs) .
:I must remind you that it is not necessary to copy the exact typography of the song. -- ReyBrujo 04:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name
Talk:Fort Whoop-Up

message: And is it a functioning museum? Kevlar67 02:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The city runs it. It is an interpretive centre, but there is a section that displays artifacts (clothing, time period goods, etc). --Kmsiever 04:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, there are at least two locations that display artifacts. The main office area, which I referred to above, and at least one of the old barracks, which displays goods, post office supplies, cooking utensils, and so forth. --Kmsiever 04:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good enough, I'll add it to the cat for museums in Alberta.  Kevlar67 21:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is actually owned by the city, but not ran by them, it is leased out to and governed by the Fort Whoop-Up Interpretive Society, a not-for profit organization, it has a small office and three attached galleries, with a reconstruction of the fort, including 12 period rooms furnished as they would have been in the 1880's - Senior Site Host, Fort Whoop-Up National Historic Site  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fekas23 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who runs the fort today? 

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: Does anyone know why this was moved from Fort Whoop-up to Fort Hamilton, Alberta? --Kmsiever (talk) 19:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article move

message: The use of “great” and “Indian” in the infobox for “last great american indian battle” are extremely problematic. “Indian” is at best a controversial term, and the ethnic groups to which it points have not as I understand self-adopted the term. Furthermore characterising any battle as “great” is implicitly prejudicial — we don’t speak of the “great” battles of the Vietnam war or the Iraq wars, so I refuse to believe it has any justifiable application in this instance. — Muckapedia (talk) 5e mai 2014 16h33 (−4h)
: Agreed. I am going to change it to Battle of the Belly River, a lot more specific and informative. Indefatigable (talk) 01:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  “Great” “Indian” Battle
Talk:Fort William, Ontario

message: This article is supposed to be about a former city, yet there is information about the area/neighborhoods/demographics after this city was dissolved/amalgamated. Please change the article to reflect the former municipality of Fort William prior to the dissolution and formation of Thunder Bay. See the Port Arthur, Ontario article for what this article should be ... all current info and stats should be in the Thunder Bay article with this one focusing only on the history of the former city.
Eja2k (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about the area known as Fort William, dispite the two cities being amalgamated they are still treated by most residents as seperate, which is why this article is written the way it is. It is talking both about what it was before the cities merged and what it still is now. They actually used to be seperate articles but the result of a merge discussion forced the merge as most considered the information just a continuation of the history of the same subject. -DJSasso (talk) 03:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

text: I tried to point this conflict out in the merge discussions but some editors can't not have their way so I gave up. It was like the Port Arthur article, and it should have remained that way. Also, the former Fort William didn't include the airport, it was in the former political township of Neebing. vıdıoman 17:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say demerge it if you want Vidioman. I forget where the merge talk was and on the talk page of the Downtown, Fort William redirect it was only a couple people complaining. So I don't know i there is a strong concensus. -DJSasso (talk) 19:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Nevermind I did it. -DJSasso (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean up and Clarification
Talk:Fort York

message: Please. This must be deleted.
Bakarocket (talk) 00:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paranormal claims section?
Talk:Abattoir (comics)

message: I noticed the rescue nom. I placed a reflist with some acceptable cites and some ext links to at least address that issue. Rv'd that tag, left the others. Mjpresson (talk) 05:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rescue flag 

message: This article was nominated for deletion on 2010-11-09 with the result of the discussion being "merge".  Coming to this article almost a year later and looking at it and seeing that no one has taken any steps to merge, and seeing that I don't agree with the merge decision (I was not around for the deletion debate, but I think this article stands on its own and is appropriately cited in secondary sources), I'm going to go ahead and remove the template and let the article stand.  If this is any contention regarding this decision it can be discussed here.  Ford MF (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of merge template
Talk:Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (1972 film)

message: One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s).  Infringing 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, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that 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.  --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Talk:1229

message: What is contracictory about this article? -- ∞Wirelain 06:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The date for the truce ending the Sixth Crusade is apparently given twice, once in February and once in March.  It might just be poor wording.  Either way, I don't know which is correct. — AKADriver ☎ 13:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made a change based on Sixth Crusade, which states that the 1st date was the treaty, the second was him crowning himself King. 68.39.174.238 01:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-Contradicting
Talk:Donnie Dacus

message: I've never seen such a screwed-up (and ridiculous) article with all the parentheses (and other journalistic errors), and somebody (not me) needs to spend their valuable (or invaluable) time cleaning up all the parentheses (and other crap) as it looks like (or probably is) the writer of Creem Magazine (or some other idiotic publication) who added all the (parentheses).
(Thank you)66.168.242.100 01:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This article (and all the parentheses)

message: What I see today is a bare bones article. Most of it is fine as far as I can tell, but there is one puzzling thing. Why is the name of his first band, The Shux, related to Jimi Hendrix? An internet search turned up the following from his imdb biography:
:His career started in a teenage band called The Shux (so named because Jimi Hendrix often ended shows by saying, "Aw shucks"). Reports indicate that The Shux had Go-Go girls, and that Dacus often dressed up as Hendrix.
Don't know personally if this is true, but it just seems kind of an odd statement. At least to someone who isn't from the Woodstock generation. Ileanadu (talk) 01:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much taken out? 

message: The article is clearly in need of rewriting and revising, because it's poorly formatted, and I think there should be more information about his time with Chicago as the first replacement guitarist for Terry Kath, such as how he was recruited and why he was eventually dismissed from the band. I know that he has been publicly silent for years, but has resurfaced in recent years, and I don't know if he's given his side of the story yet. I have read on IMDB that there are collected hints to indicate that Donnie's ego got too big and his rolling and yelping style was not well-suited to the group's onstage dynamics. Drummer Danny Seraphine says that Donnie was fired from the band because he didn't fit in with the others and it was a mistake to recruit him in the first place and in his book, he says there was on incident on a Chicago tour where Donnie had his own personal merchandise stand, but the other members objected and had it taken down.115.64.25.61 (talk) 11:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article context and reasons for dismissal from Chicago
Talk:Situational offender

message: oooh, this is a bit messy isn't it? That last paragraph needs more blending into the rest of the article to get NPOV. It is almost saying "situational offender"? BAH! Complete nonsense. Hardly what you'd want in a wikipedia article... 58.107.87.183 07:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is a competing POVs situation. It is that this article is trying to explain that there are two different theories or classification schemes used in different areas of criminology about what constitutes a situational offender. In the case of the general criminal, the theory posits that someone commits crime because of the situation they find themselves in, such as the poor starving person who steals food as they are hungry and cannot afford to by it. In the case of [child] sex offenders, the theory classifies sex offenders based on whether the offending arose from the situation that the offenders had an opportunity to offend or if it arose from a preferential desire to offend in a particular way. I think the article rightly distinguishes between the two cases, and there might well be a case for having two or more articles if there are multiple definitions. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 02:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006 comment
Talk:Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand

message: There is a "disputed neutrality" tag on the article dated Nov 2020, but there is no reason given here on the Talk page that I can see... Muzilon (talk) 09:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No feedback after over six months, so I have removed the tag. Muzilon (talk) 05:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality disputed tag?
Talk:Abortion fund

message: This page has been mostly dormant since the defunct WikiProject Abortion. Templates indicated that it needed citations and information outside the U.S. I updated content and added citations to the general information about abortion funds and to the section on abortion costs. I added internal links to related pages. I added external links to funds outside the U.S. and removed links to local abortion funds (since there could be so many listed, and these can be found through the NNAF link). WikiforPH (talk) 17:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent updates

message: Under abortion costs in the United States I believe that this section can be updated. With new presidents since 2014 abortion costs must have changed. MariaMfarbelaez (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  outdated information
Talk:Passenger (Swedish band)

message: lolololol...but anyways same article is at http://www.thegauntlet.com/bio/860/.html--xaozon 16:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted this article to the last version which was not a copyright violation from the above site, and removed some repeated information.  If you believe this was incorrect, please discuss here. -- MightyWarrior 17:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: the entry i made was not copied from thegauntlet...and are we sure thegauntlet didnt copy it from here? anyways the article was not written in very encylopedic way so i think it was from thegauntlet--xaozon 18:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you say, not written very encylopedically - also all added to Wikipedia in one edit which is often a giveway that something has been copied.  I will add your final paragraph back in. -- MightyWarrior 21:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  lol 

message: I think it's fair to say that this side-project is no more, but has any one from the band made any official announcement as to whether Passenger is "officially" no more? Dmiles21 08:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Band status?
Talk:Foetal impairment

message: There is a dishonest template tagging this article, claiming it's unreferenced.  In fact, it references the NZ law that it summarizes.  Unfortunately, the editor who's been going against consensus by repeatedly inserting this template has a history of using false templates to attack articles that he disagrees with.  As such, I will be reverting his changes and taking all necessary actions to prevent him from edit warring to get his way. Spotfixer (talk) 00:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Verifiability - Seriously, stop being an ass and read this. - Schrandit (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The unsourced template is to be used for articles that are completely unsourced. This article has one source so that template is not appropriate. That said, I'm a little confused because the link provided in the article doesn't say a word about "Foetal impairment", nor is the link to the legal code in question. Seems like that should be addressed, and it would help if we could contextualize the phrase by citing multiple sources which discuss the phrase independent from the legal code itself. For example, if we had an article on the US concept of "Equal Protection" we could cite the 14th amendment, but then we could go into Strauder v. West Virginia, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Brown v. Board of Education, in addition to citing journal articles in law reviews, and other published works. Is "foetal impairment" ever mentioned outside of the legal code? Have there ever been legal cases surrounding it? Is there multiple, independent sources which confirm it's notability? I suspect there is, but by reading this article that isn't established at all.-Andrew c [talk] 16:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dishonest tag
Talk:Human Life Amendment

message: The 2012 developments section is woefully out of date. Surely someone knows by now what the 2012 Republican National Convention platform said regarding abortion. We should know about 2016 as well by now. - Embram (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Talk:International Planned Parenthood Federation

message: Hi, I am planning on adding some information to this article, but here are my sources. If anyone has any suggestions or recommendations for them, let me know. Thanks!
Brueggemann, Walter. “Family Planning in the 21st Century: Perspective of the International Planned Parenthood Foundation.” International Journal of Gynecology & Obstertrics 58.1 (1997): 93–100. ScienceDirect. Web. 11 Mar. 2018.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020729297028579
Claeys, Vikcy. “Brave and Angry- The Creation and Development of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF).” The European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health Care 15 (2010): 67–76. PubMed. Web. 11 Mar. 2018. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21091170
Diaz-Olavarrieta, Claudia et al. “Policy Climate, Scholarship, and Provision of Emergency Contraception at Affiliates of the International Planned Parenthood Federation in Latin America and the Caribbean.” Contraception 65.2 (2002): 143–149. PubMed. Web. 11 Mar. 2018. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11927117
IPPF. “Our Results.” N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Mar. 2018. https://www.ippf.org/our-results
ElizabethFritz (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Results  

message: Family Health Association 203.99.159.205 (talk) 09:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  History
Talk:Mahavishnu

message: So bhakti (loving devotion) goes to Bhagavan, Krishna or Rama for instance (avatars or incarnations of Vishnu, Narayana).  In this way, bhakti surpasses even yoga, which is aimed at the Supersoul, Paramatma.
The conclusion looks exaggerated and isn't obvious. It looks more like a propaganda view point.--Nckalyan (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I have read of Bhaktis and Yogis, I always had the impression that Bhaktis were somewhat more powerful than Yogis. Is there a good source to read about the distinctions between the two? 50.72.32.218 (talk) 13:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concluding Bhakti is superior to Yoga looks exaggerated 

message: @Dāsānudāsa
Im devotee of vishnu, i know the truth, are you read Bhagavata purana, read first Bhagavatam before reverted, This statement belongs to (iskcon), gaudiya vaishnavism philoshopy,  not in orginal bhagavatam, i already added deleted content in gaudiya vaishnavism sub article, I kindly request to plz dont again reverted, i never again edit wiki by sectarian bias. This is last. 2409:4071:D41:5B96:396B:22D3:4F57:8288 (talk) 12:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: "Im  devotee of vishnu" is not a reliable source, unfortunately. Do you have any other arguments for why we should be removing sourced information from this article? Dāsānudāsa (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  About reverted.