lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Philosophy of copyright

message: This is virtually a stub; should a portion on justifications for no copyright (instead of justifications for copyright) be added? --Golbez 22:43, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: There is nothing in here at all about Hegel's writing on copyright, which is extensive.  I'll try to get something together.  Seeing as he's one of the foremost rights theorists I think some of his points merit inclusion.--Benwilson528 (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I should add, with reference to Golbez's point above, that Hegel provides positive justification of copyright, as opposed to a critique of it.--Benwilson528 (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Hegel

message: Il en est des livres comme du feu de nos foyers; on va prendre ce feu chez son voisin, on l’allume chez soi, on le communique à d’autres, et il appartient à tous.
What we find in books is like the fire in our hearths. We fetch it from our neighbors, we kindle it at home, we communicate it to others, and it becomes the property of all.
"Lettre XII: sur M. Pope et quelques autres poètes fameux," Lettres philosophiques' (1733)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.7.90 (talk) 09:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your erudition would be more impressive if you could spell Voltaire's name.86.184.231.135 (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Voltair
Talk:Molise Croats

message: : More Italianist Racism
I find the use of the term "Molise Slav" to be very offensive and racist. Most of all its an affront to one of the most basic of human rights...the right of self-identification. They are simply what the call themselves, that being Molise Croats and nothing else. If you are going to insist on using offensive labels like this, then why don't you apply it to the rest of Italy. I look forward to reading about Afro-Arabic Sicilians or Germano-Slovenian Veneto-Frulians etc.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.39.88 (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This was a reaction to Kwamikagami's move from February 2013; it's been partially reverted by an anonymous in April, and fully reverted now. Both of you, please cite sources and use WP:RM in the future. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

text: JFTR recent Croatian scientific works continue to use the term Molise Croats, e.g. Petar Šimunović's 2012 article in the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts onomastics journal. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Molise Slav

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Itali-Slavs and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 3#Itali-Slavs until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  signed, Rosguill talk 18:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Itali-Slavs" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Surrealist games

message: Is this page necessary?  It's basically already included in its entirety over at Surrealism.  Tempshill 23:14, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a look at the Surrealism artcle, and there's not much of a list of surreal games. Maybe there was in a previous version. Anyway, I have created a new category :Category:Surrealist games and added all the games mentioned in this article (and a few more) to the new category. If you know of any more Surrealist games on Wikipedia, then please add them to the new article. As for this page, it should be used to describe what a Surrealist game is. Ae-a 02:16, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Talk:King consort

message: Is Henrik, husband of Queen Margrethe II of Denmark, designated king consort? 71.6.50.242 (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, he is not. The husband of the Queen of Denmark was granted the title of Prince Consort of Denmark. In my opinion, it would be wise to grant him the title of king consort. Denmark now uses absolute cognatic primogeniture and there will be many queens regnant in the future, whose husbands should be treated the same way wives of kings regnant are treated. After all, the reason Margrethe's husband is not king is that it was thought that the title of king is higher than the title of queen – which is a notion that should've been discarded along with male-preferance primogeniture. Surtsicna (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Denmark 

message: :What about them?
::By Act of Parliament, joint Monarchs, and thus King and Queen. 67.149.41.193 (talk) 01:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  William and Mary 

message: Queen Ulrika Eleanor had husband, Frederick of Hesse, whom she wanted to make co-regent and king consort, but the Riksrad opposed. Therefore, she abdicated, so that Frederick would be elected as King.
Before her abdication, would it not be correct to regard that Frederick was, at least in practical terms, her prince consort??? 62.78.106.50 21:46, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Prince consort, yes – king consort, probably not. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sweden 

message: "In England, while Mary I's husband, the future Philip II of Spain, was named king, no English, Scottish or subsequent British queen regnant's husband has been named king"
This part needs to be fixed; Mary I's husbands, Francis II of France and Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley were kings consort of Scotland. The second paragraph also needs to be fixed – men who became co-monarchs by the rights of their wives were not kings consort, because kings consort (just like queens consort) do not have a regnal number. Eg. John III of Navarre was Navarrese monarch, although he became monarch by the right of his wife. Surtsicna (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  (How that self-contradictory sentence stood for so long—"While Mary…'s husband… was named king, no English… queen regnant's husband has been named king."—I can't see.)—Dah31 (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scottish kings consort
Talk:Jennifer Government

message: The entire page needs to be rewritten from the ground up. Too much original research and redundancies. Lots42 (talk) 10:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Giving that a try at User:Krinndnz/Jennifer Government. Krinn DNZ (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Gave that a try, results are now in mainspace. Krinn DNZ (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: It seems like the easiest way to significantly improve the article would be a Reception section and maybe some sales numbers — stuff external to the book, about its impact. I'm out of effort points for this article, but Barry's website has the usual list of "here are reviewers who loved it", so that's somewhere to start. Krinn DNZ (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception
Talk:Strangeness

message: The sentence "Strangeness is conserved during the strong interaction and the electromagnetic interactions, but during the weak interactions associated with particle decay it is changed by 1 in either direction; isotopic spin is conserved only during the strong interactions." seems to imply strangeness is the same as isospin; Is that true or is it a mistake?
JeffBobFrank 02:30, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [Sentence]

message: :Strangeness (particle physics) → Strangeness — This page was moved without discussion about a year ago. It is the only article using this title, and every incoming link to Strangeness (except one user page that intends the non-physics dictionary definition) refers to the physics concept. The article should be returned to the plain title.--ShelfSkewed Talk 17:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Strangness. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 21#Strangness until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Strangness" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Dwayne Johnson

message: You are not The Rock anymore. The Rock would puke if Hee could. You are just Dewayne Johnson, a spoiled rotten movie star.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.199.148.21 (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

message: Short description is not Short, it's so long that infobox isn't visible on opening article. Move some of its content below. Redmyname31 (talk) 09:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short description is not Short 

message: The rock competition with the wwe! He is very strong anda happy man
:) 180.150.36.145 (talk) 08:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2024 

message: There's a bit an edit-war on a section heading for this article.  Originally "Commercial success (2011–2020)", it was changed to "Megastardom (2011–2020)" , then to "Stardom (2011–2020)" , then "Blockbuster run (2011–2020)"  and finally back to "Commercial success (2011–2020)" .  It's now been back and forth from the last two a couple of times.  Can we please discuss this here to get consensus if this should be changed and to what if there is consensus for the change? Ravensfire (talk) 13:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a fan of the "Blockbuster" and "Megastardom" section headings that are starting to pop up (mostly in Indian actor / actress articles).  The terms are not really neutral and feel more like something I'd see on a personal website or a puff piece on a tabloid-ish site.  It's not something I would expect in a professional product as Wikipedia strives to be. At least right now, I'm against changing it to any of the terms that were used. Ravensfire (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. A blockbuster is a highly successful film. And DJ delivered consecutive blockbusters between 2011 and 2020. Blockbuster run defines this phase of his career perfectly. Your only argument against this is that it doesn't sound professional. It is a fact. I can pull multiple sources from box-office mojo alone to prove this. Parminder Sarwara (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Although commercial success refers to box office success, it doesn't count for the massive scale at which DJ had success in this period. Blockbuster run not only defines success, but very high level of success. Parminder Sarwara (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section heading 

message: The Rock’s fans are called “Rocksters”. 2601:644:4181:160:5D3A:C2F6:72FF:4352 (talk) 04:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fans
Talk:Urdu

message: The Urdu language has a wide and diverse group of fluent speakers, just like Hindi. The article, Urdu-speaking people complicates things instead of being useful, as there is no ethnic or ethnolingusitic group of Urdu-speakers as they are wide spread diverse group of people with various ethnic and regional identities. I suggest the merger of Urdu-speaking people article into this article, its situation is exactly like Hindi's, whose speakers do not form an ethnic or regional identity as other neighbouring regions. PeoplesRepublicOfChina01 (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The merger has been completed and a new sub page has been added to this article. PeoplesRepublicOfChina01 (talk) 12:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I've reverted it.  It can't be done unilaterally.  An WP:RFC is needed or at least a consensus in the well-advertised talk page proposal and then a RM.  It take at least a month if not more.  You can't make a hurried post and merge the page Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

text: Except that Urdu speaking people most definitely see themselves as a coherent identity. 39.41.209.33 (talk) 07:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: They see themselves as Muslims, not Urdu speakers. Other than that they identify as Punjabis, Pashtuns, Balochis, etc. 178.120.11.225 (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Urdu speakers are called Muhajirs in Pakistan. عُثمان (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger of the article into main Urdu article 

message: I'm restoring my version because of the following:
*Urdu is one of the Languages with legal status in India. The fact that its status is not exactly the same in India as it is in Pakistan is not a reason to exclude it. 
*Flags don't belong in Info Boxes MOS:INFOBOXFLAG.
*Indo-Pakistani Sign Language is not Urdu. The Indian Signing System is a system that includes a manually coded version of Urdu. 
*Lists should be formatted as lists, not just br-separated.
*A link to Languages of Pakistan is more appropriate than just Pakistan.
PepperBeast (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes

message: Urdu/Hindustani is a language a small minority people in Afghanistan might be fluent in due to being refugees in Pakistan and Bollywood; however, it is not an actual spoken language in Afghanistan.
Is there any WP:RS that Urdu is spoken in Afghanistan, not just understood? It does not belong to lede, and should be edited to be clear it’s not a spoken language like Dari Persian, Pashto, Uzbek, Turkmen and other languages of Afghanistan. 2600:1700:158F:A900:4158:88E6:ECAE:69DF (talk) 00:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any WP:RS regarding Urdu being spoken in Afghanistan? 

message: Ordu is first thought to be used around 1780 by a poet and a outsider saying in 1777 orduzabain is what ots called by locals. You don't see a word coined getting popular just in a while. Sources conflict, second source has more credibility because:
1. It's possible it came late into litrature Yaverjavid (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am seeing an absolute conflict between two parts....
Talk:Petty officer second class

message: * Does anyone know exactly how many months/years are required at PO3 before they're eligible to take PO2 exam?  My memory is faulty, but I think it was 2 years. - Wguynes 02:50, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)
Here are the Time In Rate (TIR) Requirements for U.S. Navy Enlisted Advancements (given in months):
SR to SA = 9 (w/No exam); SA to SN = 9 (w/No exam); SN to PO3 = 6; PO3 to PO2 = 12; PO2 to PO1 = 36*; PO1 to CPO = 36*; CPO to SCPO = 36 (w/No exam); SCPO to MCPO = 36 (w/No exam). *May be waived up to 1 year for Early Promotes (EP's) for advancement to PO1 or CPO only.
Source = U.S. Navy Advancement Center
Based upon educational background, work background or incentives for advanced training, certain recruits may enter the Navy as SA or SN.
* I used the insignia from the insignia table page.  They're rather small and lacking in detail for use here, but better than nothing.  If anyone finds higher quality, larger, and consistent-looking insignia for all the navy enlisted, please feel free to replace these.  I think leaving the table page as the small ones is best, however, due to server load. - Wguynes 02:50, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)
* 12 months/1 year is required at E4 before one is eligible to take the E5 exam or advance in any way beond the rank of PO3. -May 30th, 2005
Ok, re-corrected (again) some false information regarding the crow.  By the way, people, dungarees are pretty much gone.  I haven't actually seen a pair in the past few years.  And their replacement, utilities, are pretty much on their way out, too. Izuko 14:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: A line reads "For those enlisted sailors who qualify for the Surface Warfare insignia, the Enlisted Surface Warfare Specialist Badge can be earned after reaching at least the grade of PO2."  Unless I am reading this wrong, this statement is incorrect.  You don't have to be a PO2 to get your ESWS pin, you can have it at any rank.  I've seen E-2's and E-3's wearing them.  If I'm somehow horrifically reading this wrong let me know, otherwise I'll go ahead and remove the line in a couple days. Supergoalie1617 (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ESWS Pin 

message: It's been a very long time since I was in the Navy, but back then a second class with gold crows was hard to imagine. I never saw one. I made second in a little over two years (Viet Nam). To still be E-5 after twelve years would have meant one of two things. Either you hadn't had good conduct or you were so incompetent that the last time you tried to ship over the Navy would have declined.
Perhaps the article should point out the rarity of this occurring. Toyokuni3 (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gold crows
Talk:90125

message: With current Wikipedia policy, this page should be reserved for an article on 90125 A.D. that will be created 88121 years from now. I shall begin the move! - Woodrow 02:51, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This page really needs to be where it belongs.  All digit sequences are years, even some very long ones. (Note the talk page is already where it should be). Rich Farmbrough, 12:31 9  October 2006 (GMT).
:According to Naming conventions (numbers and dates), "Nonetheless some numbers above a normal date range have another topic than a year, e.g. 4711."  The year 90125 is considerably farther in the future than 4711, so I don't think this is much of an issue.  Personally, I am indifferent about which title the page should occupy. Khatru2 22:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Back to 90125 (album)
Talk:Naval rating

message: Dear persons who have worked on the Naval ratings page previously. I hope it suits your purposes that I included an illustration - of classic vintage - to enliven the page. I have also included some information. I hope it will be received positively. I don't wish to step on toes. Please let me know if this suits. AmesJussellR (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: A picture and some meddling
Talk:Lists of rulers of Egypt

message: Fuad II was an infant during his brief spell as king, but the pic of him is of an adult (it's probably current).  I know it might be weird to run a baby picture of him, but isn't it equally weird to run a pic of him decades after his kingship? --Jfruh (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fuad II pic 

message: * Hi friends, I do not see Shajar al-Durr in the list. She ruled before Aybak.Samsam22 (talk) 07:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shajar al-Durr 

message: * I also added al-Mustain Billah Abu al-fadl al-Abasi the caliph who was proclaimed a ruler of Egypt after dethroning Sultan Faraj Samsam22 (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  al-Mustain Billah Abu al-fadl al-Abasi
Talk:Broker

message: "On, an individual producer, ..." is obviously a typo, but I'm not sure how to fix it. Kontribuanto (talk) 00:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed - thank you for pointing that out. Sam Kuru (talk) 03:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  typo, but don't know how to fix
Talk:Senior chief petty officer

message: * Does anyone know exactly how many months/years are required at Chief before they're eligible to go for Senior Chief? I have no idea. - Wguynes 04:17, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)
Here are the Time In Rate (TIR) Requirements for U.S. Navy Enlisted Advancements (given in months):
SR to SA = 9 (w/No exam); SA to SN = 9 (w/No exam); SN to PO3 = 6; PO3 to PO2 = 12; PO2 to PO1 = 36*; PO1 to CPO = 36*; CPO to SCPO = 36 (w/No exam); SCPO to MCPO = 36 (w/No exam). *May be waived up to 1 year for Early Promotes (EP's) for advancement to PO1 or CPO only.
Source = U.S. Navy Advancement Center
Based upon educational background, work background or incentives for advanced training, certain recruits may enter the Navy as SA or SN.
Also, some recruitment and retention bonuses offer "free" advancement, so the route can be VERY fast but largely not faster than 9 years total.24.160.240.212 (talk) 02:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time in rating 

message: * Someone with an IP of 61.68.72.133 had reversed and confused a few things that I had changed (I hadn't registered yet, so all the info I added was under my IP address).  Contrary to what he changed, the chief's level still follows the rating in abbreviations (ie, MMCS, vice the incorrect SCMM), and it is still acceptable to call a Senior Chief "Senior."  Izuko 13:33, Jul 25, 2005 (EST)
*I'm having to correct the same minor mistakes over and over again, each time someone decides to be "helpful."  Specifically:
** The order of the words in a title.  When specifying a rating, the rating is given first, then the petty officer or chief's level.  In other words, it's Machinist's Mate Senior Chief, not Senior Chief Machinist's Mate.  Likewise, it is abbreviated MMCS, not CSMM.
** In the ten years I was in the navy, a Senior Chief Petty Officer was called "Senior."  I only got out last year, so I doubt much has changed.
:I know people are just wanting to help, but I'm getting a bit tired of backing off the changes.
In my experience, SCPOs are addressed as both "Senior Chief" and occasionally "Senior."  I made the edit to reflect that.  Thoughts?  -- Dave C.talk | Esperanza 15:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I could call someone Senior Chief Zappa, Senior Chief, or Senior (fairly informal in my experience) but never Senior Zappa.  Cheers.  -- Dave C.talk | Esperanza 00:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addressed as? 

message: The following text was removed from the article:
"On all over uniforms, the insignia used is the one that has become universally accepted as the symbol of the Chief Petty Officer. 
Please change the word over with the word 'other' to complete the sentence as:
"On all other uniforms, the insignia used is the one that has become universally accepted as the symbol of the Chief Petty Officer."
Thanks,
208.20.220.72 16:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User comment in article 

message: WHAT IS THE STAR ON THE SENIOR CHIEFS UNIFORMS INVERTED
VR
66.121.163.138 04:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UNIFORM