lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Canadian Duality Flag

message: Why was information critical of the flag removed?  Jonathan David Makepeace 21:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uncited information. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: : Furthermore, the maple leaf was originally chosen as the symbol of the Saint-Jean-Baptiste Society, and does not include blue in this flag.
The last phrase is puzzling.  What does not include blue, the maple leaf? the SJB flag? —Tamfang (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  unclear sentence 

message: Flagman Hank (talk) says – I paraphrase – that the article as it stands is a pack of lies.  I reverted Hank's recent edits not because I know better but because Hank's version was so poorly written; I hope someone with knowledge will comment.  —Tamfang (talk) 05:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the two versions, it's hard for this outsider to see much substantive difference. —Tamfang (talk) 06:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  rival account 

message: I removed the part The symbolism of the blue stripes...  It's incorrect unless that was actually the symbolism used in 1965.  Peter Grey (talk) 08:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but given that England's flag is both red and white, it seems arbitrary to assume that the white only stands for French Canada. The blue more unambiguously represents them. 108.254.160.23 (talk) 02:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

text: The article begins: "The Canadian Duality Flag (also called the Canadian Unity Flag) is an unofficial flag...." This is unambiguous. There is no problem here. Encyclopedias do not delete articles one the basis of one person being unreasonably offended. Ground Zero | t 19:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbolism of white
Talk:Multiplicative inverse

message: In the "Further Remarks" section, the proof has a small error: the third line which says "=> a^(-1).a.(x-y)=0" should be deleted: the proof is supposed to show that a^-1 exists, so we can't use it in the proof. We can skip directly from line 2 to line 4 since a is not a zero divisor.
Oli  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.173.194 (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in proof 

message: Are there systems where one has to consider different left and right multiplicative inverses?  
If the product rule is associative, it's easy to see that the two have to be the same -- eg, if p and q are the left and right multiplicative inverses of a respectively, then associativity would seem to imply that
:(pa)q = p(aq)
so
:q = p
The two still turn out to be the same if the algebra is not associative, but it is alternative, such as the octonions.  (Demonstration, anyone?)
I'm not sure whether the equivalence still holds for power associative algebras like the sedenions.
Does it hold generally for algebras constructed using the Cayley-Dickson construction (not necessarily starting with complex numbers and quaternions, but also starting with different associative algebras) ?
What can be said about the conditions for the right inverse and left inverse to be equivalent?
Is this something the article should discuss?  Jheald (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Left and right multiplicative inverses ? 

message: The article would do well to discuss why the convoluted terminology 'multiplicative inverse' is preferred to 'reciprocal', even as early as the seventh grade:
https://s.yimg.com/hd/answers/i/3659d3369ebb4c4da9e17b1fb09b8d13_A.jpeg?a=answers&mr=0&x=1393291657&s=b8efbedb4fe036d7d231d0a0d08b5b8b
I see that there was in 2007 a stub article 'reciprocal' which might have dealt with this point.
81.132.145.184 (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: Thsi equation has the right properties to be used in a graphical explanation of "e" --Backinstadiums (talk) 12:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  constant "e"
Talk:Maxim's Caterers

message: Shouldn't be the article's title "Maxim's Caterers Limited"? isn't that the official name of the company? Kintaro (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's ok... I finally moved the page to the official name of the company. Kintaro (talk) 20:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move? 
Talk:Bicyclic molecule

message: Why are bicyclic molecules under :Category: Heterocyclic compounds (bridged-ring)?
I am going to remove it. Please tell me if you agree. Thanks. --Kupirijo 00:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category

message: Even with today's edits, the bullets are near to incomprehensible, and the article as a whole remains poorly sourced and poor in scope and content quality. My quick edit was done so the article is at least superficially accurate, so other articles linking to it do not lead students astray. It needs a thorough going over by an expert. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits of this day
Talk:Next Digital

message: Their is currently an RfC opened for this media to determine what kind of source it is. The RFC can be located at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_Next_Digital  
Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 17:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC Opened on this media

message: I added a Neutral POV template to the article. I understand that Next Digital and Apple Daily are known for their pro-democracy stance, but there are several parts of the article that I feel fail to portray the company and its publication neutrally. In particular, two sections are especially problematic to me.
The "Political position" section is practically entirely biased. From my perspective as a Hongkonger, the section is factually correct, but only includes facts that make the company appear untrustworthy and unreliable, for example the references to sensationalism and the reluctance of mainland companies to advertise on the paper. These are true, but don't portray the entire picture.
The "controversy" section is especially problematic. The section is completely devoid of any references, and I could not find any evidence of the incident mentioned where Gilian Cheung was apparently photographed naked by a "spy camera." Of all the controversies the company has been involved in over its history, it makes no sense to focus on one unverifiable incident involving not even the company itself, but a magazine under it.
The fact of the matter is that despite the issues described in this article, Apple Daily remains one of the most popular circulations in Hong Kong and it does produce high-quality journalism, even though many of the articles are biased.
I apologise if my action was inappropriate, I am fairly new to editing on Wikipedia and as such there probably will be mistakes.
Not-a-person-hehe (talk) 09:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral POV
Talk:Complete list of works produced by Hanna-Barbera

message: Where are the Christmas Specials? I know Hanna Barbera had some because before because one of them is "The Little Troll Prince" (which has the characters shown in a box at the end of the credits) and I believe that "The Town That Santa Forgot" is another one too. --Juigi Kario (Charge! * My crusades) 00:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

message: I have for now reverted the page to the original list format, because there are some things that need to be worked out with the table version, specifically the formatting and the structure. The table as created left a lot of redundancies and non-concise cells (there is no need to list sub-programs for shows which only had one segment). Also, a lot of the dates are incorrect, as is the formatting of those dates (TV shows should be listed and dated by season).
A lot of the notes are also unclear; if someone need help copyediting, don't hesitate to reach out to another editor. A table format would be beneficial, but we may want to discuss it with the folks at Wikipedia: WikiProject American animation to see if they want to keep the page in the sequential (versus alphabetical) order it's been for several years. I am going to go ahead and make a post there. --FuriousFreddy 01:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is wrong with the plain bulleted list? I think it looks fine like that. A table just seems like it will unnecessarily complicate things. -Joltman 13:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I somewhat agree. And I've noticed that most similar articles for TV production studios use lists. I think the only issue would be whether or not the list format clearly illustrates all of the various segments of each H-B package show. A list is more easily editable. --FuriousFreddy 19:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the list takes care of the segments fine, just by indenting segments under their respective shows. If every show had at least two segments, I could maybe see a table being used, by for how it is I think it's fine. -Joltman 10:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restructuring
Talk:TOM Group

message: So this article has not been rated yet?  Well, when it is, it should say that it needs to be more neutral, and cut the company-generated blather. Earthlyreason 09:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the reasons why this article still has not been rated is because the WPHK community is still trying to reach consensus as to the assessment criteria. However, I have in the mean time, added a  tag to notify other editors. Luke! 16:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Working on the rewriting and update of information. Idunno1234 (talk) 03:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  rewriting 

message: Re-added the advert tag, it seems to have disappeared somewhere since 2007. This entire article still reads like an ad/press release by TOM Group. As well the TOM-Skype fiasco is entirely missing. Perhaps it needs a db-spam? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.74.203.206 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  advert tag 

message: How come this article does not mention the political censoring of Skype messages in TOM-Skype performed by TOM Group?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.49.123.21 (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censoring
Talk:VTech

message: The entire article looks like it's from a VTech catalog.  Seems fairly obvious that someone who was close
to VTech wrote it and it's a little insulting.  I will start the process of finding more objective sources for it, anyone want to help?
Dounai (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Company Plug
Talk:Aloja (mythology)

message: "Aloja" plural Bold textis Aloges, and that page already exists. I usually don't make major edits myself, but I think these two pages should be merged  SatoshiMiwa 00:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been done, along with copyediting, formatting of sections and lead, and adding of internal links. *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 05:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Derek Clayton

message: Born in Lancashire (UK), and raised in Northern Ireland, Derek Clayton made his impact on Australian running in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Completely self-trained, he was renowned for his dogged determination and preparation, sometimes running up to 200 miles a week.
In 1967, Clayton made his mark on running history, winning the Fukuoka Marathon in Japan in the world record time of 2 hours 9 minutes and 36 seconds. It was the first marathon race ever run in less than two hours and ten minutes. This time was below the previous record by two and a half minutes - a formidable achievement. But there was more to come. In Antwerp, Belgium in May 1969, Clayton bettered his own world record by over one minute, running a time of 2 hours, 8 minutes and 33 seconds. It was a supreme achievement that held sway as the best marathon time for over 14 years.
Clayton represented Australia at the 1968 (Mexico City) and 1972 (Munich) Olympic Games, finishing 7th and 13th respectively - a sound effort given that his tall, strong build was not necessarily suited to the summer conditions of marathon running. Following a relatively short ten year running career, Clayton retired in 1974. He left behind him international running achievements that have had an impact on future marathon runners ever since.
In national competition, Clayton won the Australian marathon four times - in 1967, 1968, 1971, and 1973. In 1965 and 1966, he competed in the 5000m and the 10,000m, placing third on both occasions. In 1967, he won the 10,000m.
After his retirement, Clayton continued to maintain a high level of fitness and is a current masters competitor, participating in both cycling and golfing events in the World Masters' Games in Brisbane and the 1995 and 1997 Australian Masters' Games in Melbourne and Canberra.
Clayton was Deputy Chairman of the 1995 Australian Masters' Games and was Chairman of the Melbourne Marathon from 1994 to 2000. He is a current board member of the Victorian Institute of Sport. #1 man……………№ on has beaten this man award!!!!!!°§  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.123.161 (talk) 05:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  derek clayton profile 
Template talk:64TeamBracket

message: Does anyone know how to place the joining lines?
That link to the instructions only is helpful for the 16 team bracket. I need some instructions for the entire 64 team brackets. Kingjeff 23:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help 

message: I have switched this template over to use new backend code.  there should be no significant changes in appearance/functionality.  please let me know if you see any problems so I can fix any bugs.  thank you. Frietjes (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  New code
Talk:A Theory of Fun for Game Design

message: Just created the article; better than nothing, I guess. If anyone can improve it, please go ahead. :)
--Akhel 00:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...and a new stub is born 
Talk:Langlands dual group

message: It should be pointed out which factor of the semidirect product under "Definition for more general groups" is the normal factor.Dewa 04:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

message: There is something called the Langlands group, so this article should refer to it. The common name for the Langlands dual group is simply the L-group. I think what is currently here should be in an article called L-group, and the article Langlands group should be about the Langlands group of a global/local field which is a (conjectural) extension of the Weil group of a global/local field by a compact group. See for example the nice article of Arthur's http://www.claymath.org/cw/arthur/pdf/automorphic-langlands-group.pdf . Any comments? RobHar 23:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Langlands group vs Langlands dual group
Template talk:Stubbed user

message: This template is to be used when emptying , when a user has decided it would be fun to have a stub on his or her user page.
If this happens:
#subst the stub template and remove the category
#subst this template on the user's talk page. A header is automatically included with it,. so none is needed. It is parametered to accept the name of the user (either the userpage name or their actual name, as you see fit). 
#sign it using four tildes.
Grutness...wha? 00:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly a good idea, Grutness. Anyways, I've made a few modifications to the template. For starters, the sentence sounded a bit informal and run-onish, so I changed it into two and added a semicolon. I also changed the link from Wikipedia:Glossary#Transclusion to Wikipedia:Template substitution,  so that more information about subst'ing is at the recipient's fingertips. Thirdly, I added a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types, so they can see an overview of the stub template system. Þicaroon 01:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As to the link change you made: I assume that, if they were able to tag their userpage with a stub tag, they already know what a stub is, and therefore don't need a link to the page explaining it. Nevertheless, I'll leave the template as is. Þicaroon 02:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, though i wonder if that link's really needed at all - they know what a stub is, as you said, but it's not necessarily the case that they'd necessarily need to know thewhole stub hierarchy, especially since it's so bit it might just confuse them! Grutness...wha? 02:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point too - maybe I deserve this barnstar for unnecessary links! Then again, the link to Wikipedia:stub is certainly more helpful and related than the WikiProject one, so there's no harm in just leaving it. Þicaroon 02:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

message: I've made it so that you don't need to include the username as a parameter; however, you can still do so. I think I'll go a bit farther with parser functions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Split Infinity (talk • contribs) 21:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had deliberately left that so you could if you wished use the user's real name. Grutness...wha? 23:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modifications
Talk:Antique reproduction

message: Reason given:
:I really don't see this article gaining any momentum whatsoever beyond stub status.
I disagree: antique reproduction has a centuries-long history in nearly all arts. This could turn out to be a 5000-word article. It may not happen quickly, but that's entirely different matter. GregorB 00:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed deletion
Talk:Great Appalachian Storm of 1950

message: There are categories for 18 states. Isn't that a wee bit extreme? Maybe at this point :Category:natural history of the United States be sufficient? Circeus 19:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it pales in comparison to other articles, both within and without the meteorology porject.  If there was a category for Natural History for the region of the Great Lakes, Ohio Valley, Mississippi Valley, and East, it would reduce the total number by 14.  This article's number of categories is well shy of the highest number on wikipedia (something like 54, I believe). Thegreatdr 20:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 54? That's definitely a job for :Category:Natural history of the United States, no questions! Maybe a regional division is needed, like that used in :Category:Flora of the United States? Circeus 01:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  too many categories? 
Talk:Disconnect (Prison Break)

message: Do we really know that Kellerman knew that Agent Kim was "making him a ghost"? I watched the scene and I assumed Kim was just pleading for another chance. --Siyavash 01:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "I am sorry - this administration does not know an agent Kellerman" followed by "Bill, don't do this".  Don't do what ? -- Beardo 05:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about final Kellerman scene 
Talk:Pinecrest Public School

message: I dispute the tag above.  "redirected ... just after discussion started" is not a result of an RFD, because there was not time for the discussion to finish.  I've undone the merge, and suggest that we have a discussion here to see if there's a consensus on redirecting (or not).  David (talk) 22:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can expand the article, with reliable sources that would be great. Otherwise leaving it in the context of the school board may be best until there is enough verifiable content to break it out on its own. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

text: * Thanks for the comment.  I'm not sure that I see a problem with leaving a stub in place for people to fill in later — most of the articles in List of airports in Canada are still stubs, for example, but they're gradually being filled in. David (talk) 01:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

text: ** For the record, I agree with you but consensus seems to have swung against this view for the time being. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Premature merge
Talk:John Grant (footballer, born 1981)

message: Page created as a profile page for this footballer today. If anyone can find any fair use images of this player that would be great. TG312274 01:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Unmanned ground vehicle

message: Beyond doubt, Unmanned ground vehicle are being used against Land mines. The article has nothing about this fact.Agre22 (talk) 00:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Land mines

message: Why does the very first paragraph of this article explicitly say these are military robots? Generally, this is the case, but it is definitely not a requirement to be classified as a UGV. I will plan to edit this out unless there is a compelling reason why a UGV can only be identified as a military platform.
Dornick (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This article relies only on military craft and ignores civil applications, such as the autonomous car, or robots used by various emergency crews or extraterrestrial rovers like the Opportunity rover. Non-military applications should be included. Tony Mach (talk) 06:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

text: UGV is a military classification, just like UAV. Didn't really even enter civilian vernacular until the mid 2000s, because civilians just called such things autonomous vehicles. 216.58.122.145 (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Military?

message: Information about UGV design and commercial uses has been added with a large number of new references. Perhaps it is enough to remove the notes at the lede and before the design section. Thatcher57 (talk) 19:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues Resolved?
Talk:List of Australian Army brigades

message: Just wondering why 18 brigade is considered current.  I have not heard of this brigade of being current and the link, links back to 1 Brigade.  This should probably be removed? --TinTin (talk) 03:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I've fixed the links to the various other brigades as well - thanks a lot for raising this. Nick-D (talk) 08:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  18th Bridage Current? 

message: As a quick note, the British-pattern artillery 'brigades' which the Australian Army raised during and after World War I were actually only battalion sized units and shouldn't be on this list (see the AWM here. Nick-D (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting point if the Army called them a brigade but by size they were only the same as a regiment/battalion how do we qualify them ? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As battalion-equivalents. Nick-D (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artillery 'brigades'  

message: Firstly I think there is now a current 6th Brigade combining all the previously independent units relating to int, recon, surveilance etc. Ie. incluindg 16 AD Regt, the reserve surveilance units etc.
Secondly perhaps a brief description of the current brigades would be good?  Or is this out of place in a 'list' article ie. 1 Brigade-Regular Mechanised Infantry Brigade based in Darwin or 13 Brigade-Reserve Light Infantry Brigade based in Perth or 17 Brigade-Mixed Regular/Reserve Logistic Brigade based in Sydney.  Do people think this is good/bad???--TinTin (talk) 23:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, TinTin. You are indeed correct, 6 Bde is active again. Thanks for pointing this out, I have updated the list. Regarding the brief description, I think this would be a fine idea. The list could stand to have about a paragraph or two providing context for each section, IMO. Of course, sources need to be added to the article/list also. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 6th Brigade and current Brigade descriptions