lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Stralsund

message: I took out the Polish name since it doesn't make anyy sence at all to mention it. Stralsund never had any connections with Poland.
To answer your question, Strzalowo was a Pomeranian city that had belonged to the Kingdom of Poland before 1199, by all means the Danish monks were NOT the first ones to have settled in  this area, I'm not certain anyone in Germany believes that Stralsund was only settled in 1199 or that it is originally a non-Slavic town, most people in Stralsund are aware that the city had a clear Slavic Pomeranian history. This German propaganda is way beyond belief, see the article: Dukes of Pomerania for more. Moreover, there is a clear tendency to exagerate the fact that Pomerania was never related to the Kindgom of Poland and was fully autonomous, oh well, yet another German propaganda.
The town was germanized and lost its pomeranian feel around 1295, the same goes to Wołogoszcz ( Wolgast), Dymin ( Demmin ) and Bardo ( Barth ). As you know Pomerania was a part of Poland therefore these territories had technically belonged to Poland at one point. I am not saying that Polish name has to be included but there is a clear feeling among some Poles that the some of the Vorpommern territory incl. Gryfia, Wołogoszcz, Strzalowo ( Stralsund ) should have been given to Poland in 1945 as well. Germans can try to revert history but these territories have a clear Pomeranian past and therefore are very dear to some Poles. VicFromTheBlock
As biased as my german perspective may be: IMHO giving "some of the Vorpommern territory [..] to Poland in 1945" would have come much closer to "reverting history" than claiming Stralsund never had any connections with Poland. Barlotto
I am sorry VicFromTheBlock, but I havent found any reliable source containing the information you say about Stralsund and its connection to Poland. Can you be more specific pointing out your sources?
As far as I know, Stralsund had strictly Nordic and German roots, no Polish root at all.
Please understand that I am talking about the city foundation process, so from 1234 on.
MeyerNet 144.226.230.37 18:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Polish Name

message: I have changed the layout of the page because there was a huge blank space between the right menu and the text. Also changed the size of the second menu which was too big. It seems better now. Any comment would be appreciate!
201.13.79.100 12:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Layout
Talk:Theatre Royal, Dublin

message: * Who was Stuart (as in pro-Stuart)? This name should be linked to the relevant article.
* "rebuilt in 1735" — rebuilt after what? Was it damaged or destroyed or just knocked down to be rebuilt?
 —Rory ☺ 21:10, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
::See my latest edits. Filiocht 07:29, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The first Theatre Royal, Dublin 

message: I have recently created the article about Crow Street Theatre in Dublin, and noticed that it was granted a royal patent in 1786. It seems the theatre remained a patent theatre until 1818. During that time it wa referred to as the Theatre Royal. It is not included as one of the Theatre Royals in this article, but I think it should be: between "the first Theatre Royal" and "the second Theatre Royal". I am considering editing the article to include Crow Street Theatre. AtticTapestry (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crow Street Theatre 

message: Hi there, the following are my observations while reviewing this article
- Not all of the facts have been referenced
- The Colleen Bawn can be wiki-linked
- No sources were provided for The Fifth Theatre Royal  — Preceding unsigned comment added by D hiuconcordia (talk • contribs) 23:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing references
Talk:Fatigue

message: The description of the image is "Images showing individual symptoms of Ebola".
Is there really no better picture to illustrate fatigue then one showing symptoms of Ebola? 194.41.216.169 (talk) 11:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: agree it's not ideal. I encouraged the artist to upload the previous picture but seems that has been withdrawn. Perhaps we can ask a fatigue sufferer to take a picture of themselves and put it into the wiki system (via https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard) Asto77 (talk) 16:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You can look for pictures in c:Category:Fatigue.  For common symptoms, artwork is sometimes a better illustration than a photo. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ebola picture
Category talk:Occupations

message: Please see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 16#Category:Professions and join the discussion if you have an opinion.  Deet 08:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:Professions]] renaming proposal

message: Some architects and engineers perform similar or overlapping tasks but this is generally only in the design of buildings and other structures.  However, most engineers don't work on buildings and structures ie mechanical, environmental, geological, metallurgical, ceramic, chemical, petrolium, nuclear, electical, aerospace, mining, and manufacturing are all engineering fields that have nothing to do with architecture.  Most if not all of these fields would be better suited in a general engineering field seperate from architecture.Engr civil 20:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Seperation of Architecture and Engineering

message: We have the category structure:
*Artisans
**Furniture makers
***Woodworkers
This seems to imply that Woodworkers do nothing but make furniture. Would it be wrong to move :Category:Woodworkers to :Category:Artisans? --Derek Andrews (talk) 14:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Woodworking
Talk:Paul Reynaud

message: After the invasion of France by Germany he made Charles de Gaulle a member of the Cabinet.
Was de Gaulle actually in the cabinet? The list here doesn't imply so. De Gaulle's article says he was, but as under-secretary of state for national defence and war - would such a post be in the cabinet? Timrollpickering 21:57, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Under normal circumstances not, only ministers are part of the cabinet. But as Reynaud himself was both PM and Minister of Defense de Gaulle had to take a far bigger responsibility than usual under-secretarys had and participated in the cabinet meetings. Kind of having the job, but not the insignia. 
--Nevfennas 18:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: There seems to be extreme bias toward 'free-market liberalism' -so called - throughout the article (and in other articles on the France of the era) but especially in 'Return to Government'. 
To whit: 'Reynaud's reforms proved remarkably successful; a massive austerity program was implemented (although armament measures were not cut) and France's coffers expanded from 37 billion francs in September 1938 to 48 billion francs at the outbreak of war a year later.'
The claim that Reynaud's reforms led to French economic recovery is dubious, at best. In fact, austerity measures are generally recognized as having extended the Depression and increased its intensity. Only one figure is cited to support the claim of success, an expansion of France's 'coffers' at the eve of the war. This article may or may not be a translation from the French but it certainly has an ideological bent toward the economic policies of the current French administration. 
In short, this article needs to be vetted and revised by a scholar in the field. 
RobotBoy66 (talk) 08:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Return to Government
Wikipedia talk:Vandalism

message: Hi,
why exactly does Wikipedia draw a line between vandalism and user harassment, considering both offences are treated the same (as far as I know)? Simple record-keeping? I‘m not an experienced user (as apparent by the IP address), but I‘m still curious. - Epsilon 2A09:80C0:192:0:7841:1E51:2CF6:E039 (talk) 11:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semantics: Vandalism vs Harrassment distinction 

message: Should Wikipedia:Vandalism#Image_vandalism perhaps be reworded so that it cannot be interpreted as claiming that it is okay to upload explicit images of minors? I can't imagine anyone would seriously read it that way, but I can't be the only one to have done a double-take when reading the description.
Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Done. Dan Bloch (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  description of image vandalism 

message: IP-addresses including
*
*
*
*
*
*
*likely many more in the same range
posted in late February many television series releases (like ) on pages like 2024 in the Netherlands like they are notable events. It don’t seems notable?. But is it also vandalism or promotion? Or should it all be moved to pages like 2024 in Dutch television 82.174.61.58 (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism? Promotion? 

message: the page should be protected Truth protest (talk) 23:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  should be protected 

message: Considering that vandalism is done in bad faith, and does not need to be humorous. Vandals can attempt to destroy Wikipedia out of hate.
Examples of humorous writing that is in good faith, but still disruptive, is when adding constructive material in an excessively humorous style, or inserting jokes that are meant to improve the fun of reading the article (and therefore helping it), but the jokes are out of place. Wikipedia is a serious wiki, after all. Sites like TV Tropes are examples of sites with a lot of humorous writing in good faith, to the point where humor is featured in encyclopedic material.
There are templates to warn people who are adding inappropriate humor into pages, and where such writing is not proven to be vandalism (therefore not making those templates be redundant to those for warning about vandalism), and they are here, here, here, here and  here.
How can this be acknowledged? Perhaps by mentioning something like this under "What is not vandalism" so that good-faith editors with too much humor can be seperated from those who want to damage this wiki, even if it can be hard to tell those two apart since humor happens to be common in vandalism. CarlFilip19 (talk) 13:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  I do not think that all humorous writing is vandalism, and this page could acknowledge that.
Talk:Congressional Gold Medal

message: Someone might want to write something/mention the fact that Tony Blair was awarded one.87.115.7.109 (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's included on the List of Congressional Gold Medal recipients. Perhaps more significant, though, is that (as far as I know) he has yet to collect it. I'll add that in once I find a source. Terraxos (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Blair

message: http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL30076_19990809.pdf
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL30076_20080130.pdf
http://uk.usembassy.gov/rccgmcrs.pdf
Cirt (talk) 16:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a link to a more current version of the Congressional Research Service report above  under "Sources" in the article. --Nyctc7 (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Good sources of info

message: Note: This is copied from the archived discussions (link above, above the Table of Contents), I am reviving it here as this question may be of general interest--Nyctc7 (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it is gold plate over bronze. See 2 U.S.C. § 802(a). --68.41.122.213 20:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 2 U.S.C. § 802 concerns the Congressional Award, not the CGM. The Congressional Award comes in three grades, bronze, silver, and gold, and the gold version is occasionaly and mistakenly referred to as a CGM. The CGM is struck from solid gold.--Nyctc7 (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Good catch. The medal was drawn incorrectly, the actual medal says 1781. I have replaced the image.-Nyctc7 (talk) 01:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the metal made of actual gold? 
Talk:Feral

message: The article deals effectively with ferals in North America, but could benefit from additions on the phenomenon in other places, e.g. the difference on the Australian continent, where there are feral cattle, deer and camels as well as horses, goats etc.  
Is one reason for this difference the sparser human population?  The harsher landscape?  
Quill 22:42, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: old comment

message: I'm already working on this, FYI.   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 , 20:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I . I ended up losing the initial C-class piece in a system crash, shortly after posting that.  :-(  I don't have any of the materials at hand again, years later, to recreate it all.  It's an open-slate topic.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feral crop / feral plant article 

message: Some unsourced material recently removed  is actually mostly or entirely sourceable quite easily. However, it doesn't really pertain just to  populations, strictly speaking, but to any free-breeding group of domesticated animals or plant, especially landraces.  There are entire preservation programmes centered on landraces (especially of cereal and fruit crops, and livestock animals), and some more limited ones for feral populations of animals, like mustang horses.  I think Landrace#Biodiversity and conservation is the better place to centralize this information, with just a brief WP:SUMMARY-style pointer from Feral.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:08, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genetic diversity 

message: Hello  Regarding. The Sorraia article does have the category :Category:Feral horses. One of these should be corrected but I don't know which. Invasive Spices (talk) 1 January 2023 (UTC)
:Hello, the category should be corrected. The Sorraia was created in 1920 by agriculturist Ruy d'Andrade who collected a number of rural horses from farms in the Sorraia region, and since then the breed has been kept either in fully domestic use or semi-feral, but never was a feral horse and there are also no feral populations of that breed. DFoidl (talk) 18:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Sorraia]]
Talk:Asian giant hornet

message: Within the article, I made changes regarding some writing and grammar errors to not only fix these errors but to improve the clarity of what you were trying to say (at times, the sentences were wordy and confusing). In addition, due to some coding errors, a lot of the species names throughout the article were either not italicized or left in quotes. I went through and fixed all of these. 
The article discusses how “species under the genus lack distinctive characteristics, making it difficult for species to be grouped”, but this makes me wonder how then the species were divided. Why is your species categorized apart from other species in your genus? Perhaps clarify this thought in your article more.  In addition, the taxonomy and phylogeny section on this article seems to deal with solely phylogeny. Consider either expanding on the taxonomy or change the heading to make it more relevant to the section content. How did your species get its name?  
In addition, you mention that the reproductive anatomy between the queens and the workers is consistent but the workers do not reproduce. Is this because the workers are being reproductively suppressed? Are their ovaries not developed? How does this come about within a colony (i.e. perhaps a dominance hierarchy within the colony)? This could be expanded upon in your article. 
Also, watch for repetition, you discuss the colors of the hornet’s forelegs, midlegs, and hindlegs both in the description section and in the anatomy section. Consider cutting one of these. 
The sources used appear to be scholarly and accurate, but when citing these sources within the article, there appears to be a lot of repeat. For example, numbers 8 and 9 in your references list are the same source. You should combine these to be within one number in your reference list by making number 8 perhaps 9d. 
Overall, the article covers a breadth of topics and was an informative, yet engaging read. The discussion about the interplay between these hornets and humans is well-explored.
Diana He819 (talk) 8:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: A recently reverted, uncited edit by an IP number  is correct. I added a source which supports this but I don’t remember when. Within the last few years. I will add this properly when I have time. Invasive Spices (talk) 23:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the source is Alaniz. Invasive Spices (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abiotic barriers
Talk:StuffIt

message: I'd suggest to discuss it here. Thank you. 84.46.6.46 (talk) 00:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stuffit for Linux: Yes, but only a very old version 

message: Is the UTI conformance a typo? It says "public.date" ... did the author mean "public.data" instead? Uliwitness (talk) 16:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stuffit UTI conformance?
Talk:Handstand

message: For a September 2004 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Handstand
----
better for wiktionary? 
The picture is not a handstand (Ikarus), should be changed. --192.109.50.10 15:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Could someone figure out how to crop the first and third photos?  I'd like to see more handstand, and less beach or building in these pics.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a look at WP:CropTool. Lambtron talk 12:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Pics
Talk:Irish Socialist Republican Party

message: This article clearly needs work. I have added the basics of the party's history since 1896 on the basis of Milotte (cited at end of article). I also removed the mention of the IRSP, who despite the similarity of name have no more rights to claim the legacy of the ISRP than any of the numerous other groups who do so (and whom I don't feel it to be worth mentioning either). 
However, it could be argued that the party history from 1909 on, especially considering the organisational break, should be included as a separate entry under Socialist Party of Ireland (the page currently included with that title refers to the 'Socialist Party' and the 'of Ireland' is presumably included for disambiguation purposes).Palmiro
:I think calling it a "a pivotal Irish political party" is POV as it never had anyone elected. "Influential" would be better.86.42.198.62 (talk) 15:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial text
Talk:Tab

message: once upon a time (late 70s, early 80s), some company named TAB Books published a lot of computer books. (introduction to applesoft basic, and computer peripherals that you can build were a couple of their titles) I have no idea whatever happened to them. They don't seem to be listed here.
:I was surprised there's no entry for TAB Books too! The brand was acquired by McGraw-Hill and is used today for Electronics and DIY books. Back in the 1970s, I believe the company was called TAB Books, Inc. Steevithak (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  TAB books? 

message: I removed this final sentence from the definition about "Chicago tab" and "Tab (GUI)":
:Any protruding piece of a laminar.
I don't know what this is trying to say. Since it's not linked to anything, I don't see the use of keeping it. If you disagree, please try to explain it better and link it to something. - dcljr 00:44, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed text

message: Is tab also a fictional Beer from The Simpsons? Ojw 12:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Beer?

message: See Talk:Tab#Proposed Move.
* Support per above. David Kernow 17:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: Insert nBold texton-formatted text here —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.205.155.106 (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  hcvcnvbnvb 

message: I'm a german. I hadn't know the really meaning of Tab in respect to Tab (GUI). In the translation software [dict.leo.org], the word Tab is translated with the german word Registerkarte too, which is in english index too. It is approximately that in paper-using-form, what a Tab (GUI) presents at the display of computer. The meaning of a German [de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Registerkarte] should be mentinoned here too! I didn't found it. In the german wikipedia, the link to the english page is set with the Tab (GUI), which explaines only the computer form. The geman explaination respects both in one article, the paper-form-using and the GUI. But i think, it should be 2 separated articles in german, and also in english.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.138.39.56 (talk) 06:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Meaning of tab for index

message: The following entries do not represent titles that are synonymous with any English sense of "tab", and thus do not further  the purpose of a Dab page:
*Taba (disambiguation)
*Tabasco
*Tabb (disambiguation)
*Tabla
*Table (disambiguation)
*Taboo (disambiguation)
*Tabriz, Iran
*Tabula (disambiguation)
*Tabula Rasa (disambiguation)
--Jerzy•t 09:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted entries
Talk:Royal Court

message: I have merged all material here with Noble court as there is no useful distinction. Wetman 00:43, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Royal court is the article; and Royal Court is this <U>disambiguation</U>.
* Noble court is a <U>redirection (redirect page)</U> to: Royal court.
 <SMALL>you see: it wasn't the same, <SMALL>but it was many years ago (2004~now~) --Pla y Grande Covián (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  article (and redirection) & disambiguation
Talk:John Patten, Baron Patten

message: I've moved the page because "Baron Patten" seems to be a better disambiguation than "UK Politician," for the former is actually a part of his title. -- Emsworth 00:58, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: Currently give only this: "Patten's record as education secretary has been described as "appalling" by David Hart, former general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers and major opponent during his time in office.[1]"  Following the source I see that it is a throwaway line in a longer comment about Tory education secretaries.  A throwaway line by a clear political opponent is therefore now the only assessment we have of the man's political career.  Not good.
An ideal fix would be to expand the section on his time as Education Secretary.  What policies did he implement?  Who supported them, who opposed them?  Which were regarded in the fullness of time as successes or failures, and by whom, and for what reasons?
I'm not deleting the line just yet, as I'd prefer we move towards that ideal fix.  But I think that unless someone (including me) gets up the energy to do it the right way, leaving a biased entry like this is unfair, and we should remove the line.  I'll do that later this week, if I don't get time to make some proper edits.  (I might get the chance, on Wednesday.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There having been no response for several days, I've simply removed the line as incompatible with WP:BLP.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Record as Secretary of Education 