lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Prisionera

message: from VfD:
As for Anita no te rajes above. Deb 17:25, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: And my point is that we serve the English speaking community.  EN is not the master or the true Wikipedia.  There should be a great deal of content on .SE or .CZ or .JA that isn't appropriate to .EN.  That's not because it's not good information:  it's because the items under description are not notable in the Anglophone world.  It's not a value judgment.  Do you think that the .DE folks are going to wonder about whether my new Peachoid is useful to them?  I hope they don't. Geogre 01:24, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I always saw Wikipedia's different languages as being just a result of the fact that we don't all speak all languages fluently. Similarly, I think of EN as the "Wikipedia IN English", not "Wikipedia for the English". I don't see why one's language necessarily indicates what one will be interested in -- are Australians going to be interested in your Peachoid? Are Parisians likely to find towns in Quebec interesting? I do find this to be an interesting topic though, and am interested in further dialogue on it, in or outside this VFD. --Improv 17:38, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Reverse discrimination

message: The idea has been proposed to merge reverse racism with this article. Any ideas on this? Regorsash (talk) 01:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[reverse racism]]? 

message: I suggest moving the United States Colleges section out of this article. I think it belongs at Affirmative action in the United States#Implementation in universities. Including it here runs the risk of creating a WP:POVFORK. What do others think? Daask (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Seems like a WP:COATRACK or WP:INDISCRIMINATE example. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving out United States Colleges section 

message: I think its safe to say this page has some issues. The entire introduction rests on a single source, which is explicitly talking about this phenomenon in the context of the USA. I'd say this is an issue if the article is going to be acting like this is some widely studied and accepted sociological phenomenon, when best I can tell this is a rhetorical bit almost exclusively employed by the American right. 
Additionally, the section of Affirmative Action is... Not good. It seems like it is attempting to lay out the argument of what "Reverse Discrimination" is, but the tone just feels quite odd. I think perhaps this whole section should be scrapped, and a more explicit one replace it that makes it clear that it is summarizing the argument. SomerIsland (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing, the Intro, and the Entire Affirmative Action Section 

message: The main article appears to be confounding in that if discrimination based upon race, age, or for that matter insert-class-here is held unconstitutional, it then naturally follows that the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment naturally bars reverse discrimination because by extension of basic logic, while a minority would have a right to equal-protection there exists no right to special privileges of law- where it naturally and logically follows that if reverse discrimination is not actionable then anti-discrimination operates as special privilege of law which the fourteenth amendment explicitly forbids by it's text in no uncertain terms. Therefore, it appears that, unless there is an implicit argument the article doesn't mention that the main article doesn't withstand basic logic and is therefore highly questionable based upon basic common sense. Therefore, the article needs to be edited to include at least some background on the development of underlying principle as to see the basic logic of where things are. 98.178.191.34 (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles are based on published, reliable sources, not armchair logical analyses by anonymous users. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  26 February 2022 

message: Recent SC decision 108.20.37.19 (talk) 02:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: To my knowledge SFFA v. Harvard didn't have much to do with "reverse discrimination", i.e , but I could be wrong. Source? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs update
Talk:Burchett

message: from VfD:
*Delete - This anon users name must be Burchett since every article he creates (many) are related to the last name "Burchett".  He is creating this disambig page for every Burchett he can think of (maybe to include his own name and get it lost in the articles) and creating odd links back to the disambig page from within Burchett articles by linking from the last name even though it is being used to talk about the very article it is already in.  - Tεxτurε 18:04, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment- either of the two politicians might be searched under only their last name, since they will often appear that way in titles of legislation or documents. -FZ 19:36, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Talk:First Hill, Seattle

message: Still trying to figure out the boundaries... --Lukobe 18:09, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'm kind of stymied. How far east does the hill go? Some say 12th, 13th, 14th, others say it's closer to 20th. I guess one could think of it this way: is Providence Hospital on the hill or not? --Lukobe 18:40, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always thought Providence was on the hill, but I sure don't have any better idea than you of the exact boundaries. :-)  Thanks for adding them, by the way!  I chickened out and went with "between downtown and Capitol Hill" -- sorry about that, and I appreciate your taking the time to remedy my deficiency. :-) Jwrosenzweig 22:05, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: No problem--I sort of ended up chickening out, too, and said the boundary could be anywhere between 12th and 18th Avenues :) As for photos, I do live in town, but have no digital camera! Sorry! --Lukobe 22:39, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Alaskan husky

message: The featured photo is not of an Alaskan Husky. It is of either a pregnant or fat Siberian Husky. None of these photos accurately depict this dog type. This is one of my sled dogs, out of Doug Swingley bloodlines.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Idol_swingley.jpg
Asigglin (talk) 23:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I found an image in Flickr that you may use. It is located here and it has a compatible CC license. Since I don't know much about dogs I leave it up to you people to decide if it is good enough for the article. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 12:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Seeing no objection, I have removed the tag.--Coaster1983 19:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Need photos

message: Should this have the breed table, or is this the equivalent of collie and Jack Russell Terrier?  I'm not sure because I don't know enough about the breed/type. -- sannse (talk) 18:33, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know either; I added it based on the fact that it's in the List of dog breeds. There sure isn't much info to put in the table!  Elf | Talk 19:03, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Breed table?

message: "Alaskans are strong working dogs with thousands of years of breeding and history in the north country." Um...how can they have thousands of years of breeding and history if the breed is defined as a mongrel cross of New World Alaskan Native dogs and Old World breeds such as hounds? Fledchen 02:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breed History 

message: I just wanted to point out that referencing the Alaskan Husky is the sled dog of choice for sprint races is a bit, well, I'm not sure how to put it. If I had to pick a breed that's most commonly used in sprints it would be the eurohound, but honestly almost every musher breeds they're dogs to their specific qualifications, so I'd say the Alaskan Husky the sled dog of choice for most sled dog races, since almost any dog running in a race can qualify as and "Alaskan Husky," except of course the few exceptions when people run either purebred Siberians, or other purebreds.
Anyway, my point is, if we're going to talk about a sled dog of choice for sprint races, we should say eurohound and not Alaskan Husky.
On another matter, and I'm not sure this should be added as it's rather horrible, but happens quite often, the point on Alaskans who fail to meet performance standards is mostly true, but there are a few mushers out there who kill any puppy who's not up to standard.
Sorry if I'm a bit picky about this whole subject, I am both a musher and Alaskan Husky breeder. I have quite a few edits I'd like to add, but before I do I'm working on them in my sandbox so I can get opinions on them (they aren't up yet.)
Thank you,
Aelyanariah (talk) 7:30, 31 Aug 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small Dispute 

message: I suggest that Mackenzie River husky be merged here, due to the fact that it is a strain of alaskan husky. --TKK bark ! 13:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal
Talk:Nawaz Sharif

message: Add his position as MEMBER NATIONAL ASSEMBLY which he took oath of on 29 feb 2024 2400:ADC1:440:E00:55B5:E978:236B:F830 (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Already done --TheImaCow (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2024 

message: Update that he is currently a member of National Assembly Pakistan since 29th Feb 2024 2400:ADC1:440:E00:B022:F526:D4D5:F925 (talk) 21:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2024 

message: Add that he is currently member National Assembly of Pakistan 2400:ADC1:440:E00:69CD:9008:6111:E6A2 (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 01:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2024
Talk:Anne Shirley

message: "Customized classics" are a range  of  "editions" that put your picture on the cover, add a happy ending to Romeo and Juliet, and replace the names in the texts with the names of your choice: "Oh, Brad, Brad, wherefore art thou Brad?"  You can get a customized edition of Moby Dick, with either Ahab or Moby bearing your own name. I'm trying hard to suppose that such links are added in good faith, and not as vandalism. Try to imagine EB referring to this type of product in its articles about literary classics. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia too. I've removed  a couple of them here, just as I have removed the same user's nonsense text in  Romance novel and Romantic fiction. --Bishonen 18:52, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Added information on the portrayals of Anne by Mary Miles Minter and Kim Braden. HillbillyProfane (talk) 08:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Film and Television Portrayals
Talk:The Second Jungle Book

message: "Customized classics" are a range  of "editions" that put your picture on the cover, add a happy ending to Romeo and Juliet, and replace the names in the texts with the names of your choice: "Oh, Brad, Brad, wherefore art thou Brad?"  You can get a customized edition of Moby Dick, with either Ahab or Moby bearing your own name. I'm trying hard to suppose that such links are added in good faith, and not as vandalism. Try to imagine EB referring to this type of product in its articles about literary classics. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia too. I've removed one of these links from this article, just as I have removed the same user's nonsense text in  Romance novel and Romantic fiction. --Bishonen 18:58, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: Are there 16 stories, or eight? --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Eight stories, each of which is followed by a related poem. There are also eight pieces of verse at the head of each story, 2 or more lines long.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of stories

message: Reject. This is a separate and distinct, though related, work, and deserves to be treated as such. Lee M (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to merge with ''[[The Jungle Book]]''

message: Was just wondering, why is there a link toward the "Third Jungle Book"?
That does not seem justifiable, since the original writer Kipling only wrote the First and Second Jungle Books.
The link toward that third jungle book seems like an attempt at leeching from the success and popularity of Kipling's work.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.190.102.91 (talk) 12:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Point; hadn't noticed that yet. Yep, that's a little misleading and shouldnt be stated in the box in that way. Removed. (It can still be found under "Derivative works".) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: [Followed by the third jungle book?]
Talk:Karmapa controversy

message: This discusion, moved from Karmapa, is a bit of a dog's dinner having been edited by people with an interest in one side or other of the dispute, and a few people trying to bring it back to NPOV. It now completely lacks structure. I'm not sure how to approach a controversial  topic like this. Billlion 19:02, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Good start I had the same sort of structure in mind. I know someone people involved in Urgyen Trinley Dorje's side of Kagyu and will see if one of them will contribute. Billlion 20:13, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: OK, I added some more story-telling but I’m unable to do more. My source about the whole story is mainly Tomek’s book mentioned on the page. I think someone who knows more about the subject should continue the story. Also, some sort of a short timeline would be a good idea. AndyBrandt 21:08, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: moved from [[Karmapa]]

message: Would someone be so kind as to date the statement that the two current claimants have not yet met?  I.e., "the two have not yet met, as of such and such a date."  Thanks!  --- Eiríkr Útlendi 06:37, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary

message: Hi Skyerise the recent edits you made are very good. Any chance you could do a quick once over on other sections? I know that's a lot to ask, but if you're motivated and have time, there are sections that could use a trim. Badabara (talk) 06:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Skyerise Thanks for your edits!Badabara (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Overly long and overly detailed
Talk:Mentalist

message: I don't want to be too quick to label something vandalism that might be a sincere attempt to add to the Wikipedia, but the changes labeled "scepticism" (sic) are not NPOV, nor do they make much sense. I suspect this individual may be trying to assert an alternative meaning for the word "Mentalist" that isn't widely accepted. If he or she can write a coherent defense of this definition, then perhaps we can create a disambiguation page and link to the new definition. 
--67.171.28.197 19:41, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:T-35

message: ...only 61 were built...
...with 62 T-35s...
These statements are mutually exclusive.  I don't know which is right, but one of them is wrong. daesotho 20:07, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: http://41.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mddnfttZna1r3eyedo1_1280.jpg
That tank (and the T-26 next to it) are from the 67th Tank Regiment, 34th Tank Division, 8th Corps, in Ukraine in 1941. The stripes on the main turret side are the unit insignia. Just over 90% of the T-35s were lost due to mechanical breakdown, not combat, so its unlikely that it is knocked out. DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of a knocked out T-35
Category talk:Atlanta

message: True or false: a category can be a re-direct to another category. 66.32.246.17 20:11, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect

message: Is there a reason the category is not :Category:Atlanta?  Are there other Atlantas that one is likely to confuse this one with?  --Tbook 20:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Atlantas?
Wikipedia talk:Managed Deletion/Political speech

message: I would like some discussion about whether the No-boo example is a clear precedent for this specific case.  The article was based in fact, well sourced and presented in a reasonably NPOV fashion.  I would agree that it is deletable as non-notable and under the "Wikipedia is not a news report" but a reasonable person could interpret this article as other than pure political speech.  Rossami 20:54, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Talk:Flying fox (cablecar)

message: I hadn't heard of zip-line until it came up in a news article today, which led me to this page via the Zip-line article. There's discussion there about a merger too, which ends up deciding in favour, but obviously never done. I think that the main case for a merger is that they are so similar and there is already a section in Zip-line about the Flying fox, which will inevitably lead to duplication and/or diverging information about the same thing. Best to get consensus but it's not as if this is a major article and I think it can be safely accommodated in the Zip-line one, along with appropriate redirects and additional info and citations copied over and credited. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: As per previous discussion, now merged with zip-line. See Talk:Zip-line for further discussion. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Update on merger proposal
Talk:Legal age to purchase alcoholic beverages

message: What is the point of this article?  Oh, and the legal age to purchase alcohol in Canada and the United States (and presumably other nations) varies by province/state.  For example, the legal age in Ontario is 19, while in Quebec it is 18. --timc | Talk 21:14, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I guess I put my foot in my mouth there.  Still, ages do vary in Canada. :-) --timc | Talk 00:16, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Talk:Zambezi Region

message: I'm sure this is a mistake. Remember that animal includes insects and worms and all kinds of things. Should it read "450 species of vertebrate" perhaps? --Stemonitis 12:57, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  450 animal species?!? 

message: wikipedia says, on the Namibia page, that Namibia borders Zimbabwe. But, on the Botswana page, it says that Botswana borders Zambia. Topologically, both cannot be simultaneously true, unless there are enclaves or exclaves, or a true 4-way corner? Does anyone know which is the case?
:Namibia surely does not border Zimbabwe. They are separated by ~10 km of riparian Botswana. Verdi1 05:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Borders? 

message: I've adapted the infobox from the German version of this article as a more professional variant of the existing table. What do you think of it? Ygoloxelfer 16:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: I think it's highly inappropriate to include the separatist flag in an article about the Caprivi Region.  If there is no official flag, then no flag should be shown.  The separatist flag belongs in a separate article.--Eddylyons (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separatist Flag? 

message: Some minor updates. You know, it's quite strange, but there're not so much data about Namibia, and, particularly, this region. I'll try to do my best)) Mind abuse (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Currently editing this page
Talk:Treaty of Wehlau

message: Most of my edits are rather self-explanatory. Could you give your sources for the date? I was always taught that the treaty was signed on Sept. 9, not 19th. As to the name Welawa/Wehlau: I moved the article because:
* Until the treaty the town was Welawa, it changed hands after the treaty
* The Treaty of Welawa wins with Treaty of Wehlau by a huge margin in Google ("Treaty of Welawa" - 323, "Treaty of Wehlau" - 38)
-- Halibutt 21:25, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
Welawa is fine. And I made a mistake with the date. Rübezahl 22:56, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

message: ..."get it?" Ksenon 03:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ..and Ducal Prussia wasnt a part of Poland 

message: For all the reverting going on, there is a distressing lack of talk on this page. Please be nice, chat more, revert less. Your friendly admin support, William M. Connolley 20:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not much talk 

message: ...gave way to self determination. Besides, there were no claims, as the Second Polish Republic had no legitimate claims to the land of a fief of the Polish kingdom. Now please stop, this is getting tedious. Ksenon 17:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, though try explaining anything to the POV crusaders, with limited knowledge on the subject at that. Ksenon 21:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If the Polish diplomats at Versailles after World War I used the Treaty of Welawa as justification for their claims on the territory, then that should definitely be listed here. If they didn't (and instead based their claims on the territory based on the population of Poles living there), then it doesn't seem relevant to go into post-17th century history in this article. That's what I meant when I was talking about the validity of the treaty in the 20th century. I personally do not know if the diplomats referred to this treaty when the Second Polish Republic was being created. Olessi 22:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal claims... 

message: In this edit  user 24.23.39.36 adds that the treaty was to be renewed upon the death of each ruler; therefore, the treaty would cease to be applicable if future rulers did not renew it (and the status quo would henceforth result). Are these terms of the treaty verifiable? Olessi 05:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 11:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terms of the treaty 

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support as originator. Olessi 04:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I added tag for confirmation on unsourced claim.--Molobo (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request confirmation on unsourced claim