lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Sikkim

message: For capital and largest city, the format must be like this:
| seat_type                = Capital
| seat                     = 
49.146.22.36 (talk) 06:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: Your proposed change will display "Gangtok and largest city". Changing the "seat_type" to "Capital and largest city" would make the parameter too long M.Bitton (talk) 14:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2023 

message: The  used on this page is going to be replaced with  as per the Proposal and Consensus of RFC. Any questions/suggestions? Discuss Here.
You can also contribute by replacing Infobox settlement with Infobox Indian state or territory on other pages , or by improving this one. Tojoroy20 (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Replaced —  Tojoroy20 (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox replacement 

message: This is very minor, but the order of the pictures is wrong in the infobox caption. The pictures are stated as being in clockwise order from the top left. However, the Temi Tea Garden picture should come before Rumtek Monastery in clockwise order, and in the infobox, they are reversed.
2601:5CC:C500:F470:29E3:C130:58D4:3848 (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox Picture Order 

message: in some references the area is referred to by Sikhim, please add this as a previous name. See, for example, https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Sikhim and  https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Sikhim_and_Bhutan. 2600:1013:B024:FE8F:3498:3774:CD33:6364 (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add "Sikhim" as obsolete toponym
Talk:Wen Wei Po

message: It looks like the article is focused on destroying Wen Wei Po's credibility simply because it does not follow certain political "guidelines" "free" newspapers all follow.
Stuff like "Its reports on issues other than politics and China are considered as more reliable" and "Wen Wei Po gained a mean of 4.68 mark, where the maximum mark is 10, among local media organizations" is not backed up by any recent statistics (1996? Really?), and is nothing more than libel.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.158.81 (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hm.
Talk:Chlodion

message: I removed the following sentence from the article:
:Legendaryly he should be born as the gain of the violence of his mother by a monster.
I can't find anything about this; it seems that this legend is associated with Merovech, Chlodio's son. Can anyone confirm either legend? (I mean the existence, not the truth of the legend :)
And by the way, according to Brittannica, he's usually called Chlodio in English and Chlodion in French. A Google search seems to confirm this (English: chlodio 110 hits, chlodion 55 hits; French: chlodio: 97 hits, chlodion 190 hits). Move? Eugene van der Pijll 18:21, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Given all that, I think a move would be in order, yes. - Hephaestos 05:44, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Talk:Baloch people

message: Change: 
1. "Asif Ali Zardari (born 1955), the 11th president of Pakistan." to "Asif Ali Zardari (born 1955), currently serving as the 14th president of Pakistan."
2. "Sarfraz Bugti (born 1981), a former home minister of Balochistan. Currently a member of the senate." to "Sarfraz Bugti (born 1981), the current Chief Minister of Pakistan."
3. "Abdul Quddus Bizenjo (born 1970), the current chief minister of Balochistan." to "Abdul Quddus Bizenjo (born 1970), former Chief Minister of Balochistan." Hightox (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I added all of these with slight tweaks, thanks. Jamedeus (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Population figures are outdated by a one and half decades also It only mentions those who are speakers of the language and not the actual people in ancestry and descendance GamerHashaam (talk) 05:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 April 2024
Talk:Phylum (disambiguation)

message: I am turning this into a redirect page because it has become a disambiguation page with 100% of the "what links here" going to scientific classification and because even the linguistics page does not mention the alternate definition of "phylum".  Rossami 22:08, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

message: Done. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 11:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discision
Talk:George Galloway

message: Just one small fact - the date of his Parliamentary service should not be until the date of an election, but dissolution of parliament - as is the case on all pages with MP articles, as MPs are not in office during elections. Please change the date from 6 May 2010 to - 12 April, 2010, and change 7 May 2015 to - 30 March, 2015. Thanks 92.40.201.98 (talk) 13:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thickynugnug (talk) 03:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of his Parliamentary service

message: I'm at +1 on having the 2007 image. It is much better and the fact the the Rochdale image is newer doesn't mean that it is ideal because it isn't of very good quality. ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also likely that we won't have to wait too long for a high quality Parliamentary portrait to be released (assuming an election isn't called too too soon), so I don't see any problem holding on till then. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes hopefully a new parliamentary portrait will be taken soon. Strangely enough, no previous parliamentary portrait exists currently despite him being an MP for many years.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be because they only started taking these high quality parliamentary photos, and releasing them under CC, in 2017 . This is also a problem that affects the other former MP who stood in Rochdale, Simon Danczuk, who, despite being an MP for 7 yrs, has to settle for a random OGL photo from a trip to Sri Lanka. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 23:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Re this edit: More quickly than expected, he does have an official parliamentary portrait. He is wearing the hat that seems to be his trademark, but it is much better than the Rochdale image.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  +1  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 13:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

text: Oh I see thanks for explaining. For some reason, I thought parliametary portraits started in 2015, not 2017.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 13:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead image
Talk:Do

message: My edits answer the question people may raise: why do many Japanese and Korean martial arts have the -do suffix in name but do not Chinese ones have? I think -do is a nice test to detect false arguments regarding martial arts. If one claims that a martial art whose name has the -do suffix has been called so since time immemorial, the whole argument is hightly questionable. --Nanshu 22:55, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I believe the tea ceremony is called Chado. (o)cha = tea, do = the way of (preparing). Dustin Asby 23:56, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancies 

message: This Dab page needs some cleanup to conform to WP:DAB and MOS:DAB. Editors are encouraged to take a look and see if they can help. Bradford44 14:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: The entry for "Dragon Order" seems to be a veritable vandal magnet.  If you look in the history, it has been changed many times, usually to horridly POV statements.  Seeing as there isn't even an article for it, would it be less trouble to just delete this entry?  --FlamingSilmaril Talk\Contribs 13:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, delete it.  In fact, a number of entries need to be revised for consistency with MOS:DAB in general. Bradford44 15:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, deleted.  End of story (hopefully).  --FlamingSilmaril Talk\Contribs 16:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dragon Order 

message: "Doing" is also a sound (pronounced as "doyng"). I think you should find a location for this sound. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doing
Talk:Lists of most common surnames

message: Micro/polynesian Islands might be worth considering too. 158.174.100.11 (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that census data from African countries might not be easily available, or not available in English at all. For comparison, the List of most popular given names only lists eight African countries, with Libya being completely unsourced and Egypt being based solely on an unofficial census. 193.211.6.198 (talk) 12:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Africa is missing, why?
Talk:Jesus in Islam

message: Just as a heads up, this article has been extensively edited by SheryOfficial sockpuppets. There were many of those before 9 February 2022‎ (   , most of them reverted), but since that date the sockpuppets they used on this article were Special:Contributions/119.63.138.0/24, , Special:Contributions/137.59.217.180, , and Special:Contributions/119.73.112.0/24. They have done a fair bit of edit warring, and posted this talk page post (2nd reply). It also appears that most of the non-reverted edits to this article were by them. Anything they have changed may be undone, per WP:BANREVERT. One possibility is to restore this 7 February revision, though given the many edits by others I have not immediately done so in this case. Their most recent edit to this article is this one ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sockpuppets notice 

message: There is a typographical error in the phrase: "Nor shall I be unfaithful in acting against his command." The word against is broken in two, the "ag "is separated from the rest of the word by a huge gap and needs to be corrected. 2603:8000:D601:830:C5E7:8394:7AB2:B7D3 (talk) 12:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, thanks. Graham Beards (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2023 

message: change Jesus is believed to have raised people from the dead, as mentioned in al-Imran (3) 49 to Jesus is believed to have raised people from the dead, as mentioned in al-Imran 3:49, and hyperlink https://quran.com/3/49 to the 3:49 Quranlinkfinder (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I replaced the verse number with Template:CiteQuran Ayah, as used in the rest of the page. Thanks. Jamedeus (talk) 00:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2024 

message: The Quran lacks Orthodox Christian philosophy to The Quran lacks orthodox Christian philosophy Pintosamuel35 (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2024
Talk:Beggar-my-neighbour

message: Has anyone else played the version for more than two players? Same rules, except if someone lays down a 7, the direction of play reverses; and if anyone makes a mistake, they have to lay down two cards. Multiple decks can be used. -- Jim Regan 23:58, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and if a two is played, the next player is skipped - Jim Regan 00:03, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you find a citation for this type of play? If so, please include it in the article. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 01:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I have only played this game according to the rules described in the article but with usually more than two players. User:Brenont 02:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most versions of the rules I've seen online suggest the game for 2 or more players, but it does "make more sense" as a two player game. I've referenced a Guardian article to support 2+ players since it acknowledges that the game is primarily for 2, then introduces 3 or more.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.133.219 (talk) 11:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  More than two players 

message: Shouldn't the random chance be "Complete"? Is there anything a player can do to influence the outcome of the game?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altay8 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is true it is often played as in things such as top trumps that when you are down to three cards you can chose the order of your cards which changes it from pure randomness.Tetron76 (talk) 11:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random Chance 

message: This article seems to be protected from editing without any indication of when or how.--109.149.32.47 (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected?
Talk:Archetype

message: I find the absence of Erich Neumann in the Neo-Jungian concepts section a little disturbing. In the forward of his book The Origins and History of Consciousness, Jung himself states that this was the book he wish he could have written. 174.18.24.139 (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absence of Neumann
Talk:Easy Finder

message: I am finding that some people mistakenly label this magazine along with many others (e.g. Apple Daily) as tabloid. Please don't wrongly label them unless you know the whole background. OhanaUnitedTalk page 07:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tabloid 
Talk:28th century BC

message: Removed from text:
*  2773 BC -- The 365 day year introduced
This is nonsensical. What is meant here by year? Is this the first known date according to a solar calendar, as opposed to a lunar one? The earliest calendar? And how was the date determined? And where was this introduced -- China, Egypt, Mesopotamia? 
These questions should be dealt with before this entry is allowed to be returned to the article. -- llywrch 03:55, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:List of years in science

message: I like the idea, but I suggest that we drop the quotes (as was done for List of years in literature) rename this page List of years in science.  The quotes render badly in the URL and aren't really necessary in any case. --Lexor 09:50, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Lexor 09:55, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title suggestion: no quotes

message: How many singular year entries are useful (1600-present) or (1700-present) etc. Before that time it is probably sanest to go by decade (or maybe century). What do others think? Maximus Rex 05:08, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: The earliest page that links here is 1643, so I'd say individual years back to 1600.Gentgeen 07:29, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Almost without exception every year article in the 17th and 18th centuries are stubs and will probably be very short for a long time. So why then does it make sense to break off the science? Not much science there either, BTW. --mav 09:38, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Entry ranges/intervals

message: What is the rationale behind not having dates before the year 1500?  Inaccuracy?
Certainly I think that it would make sense to consolidate the years before 1500 into, say, centuries or groups of 50 years or at worst decades -until- there is enough content to expand them, the same goes for the 1500 to 1600 period, but certainly -some- science and technology events happened prior to the year 1500...  --Tchalvak
:The scientific method was "invented" and used from 17th century and beyond. Obviously, pre-scientific method information may be collected by year, but this can trigger a discussion about what is science or not. emijrp (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Dates before year 1500

message: Note: the following text has been copied to Talk:2005 in science in order to facilitate a discussion happening somewhat sooner/quicker than would otherwise seem likely, judging by the history of contributions. --Wernher
Oh well, here we go again... In this "List of years in science" article and the "Year in science" articles pointed to, as well as in many other science-related articles, science and technology are bandied about as if they were identical concepts. This misleading mix-up/misunderstanding should really not be present in a serious encyclopedia.
I wonder if we should try and get some wiki developer to automagically rename the affected articles to "List of years in science and technology", "Year in science and technology", and so forth? --Wernher 12:30, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Arrgh! Science &ne; Technology!

message: The Years in science WikiProject has been marked defunct for 6 years.  I think there is benefit in having the project available as a place to discuss future evolution of the "YYYY in science" pages.
If you have thoughts, please join the discussion in the WikiProject Years in science talk page.
Metawade (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Reinstate the "Years in science" WikiProject
Talk:Twin Cities

message: *Twin Cities, as a capitalized term, is usually used in the English-speaking world to refer to Minneapolis-St. Paul.  Thus, it should redirect to Minneapolis-St. Paul.  "Twin cities" and/or "twin cities" are generic terms that should redirect to the generic twin cities article.  Thus, please do not change the redirect from this page.--Bibliophylax 23:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect
Talk:Hong Kong Economic Times

message: About U Magazine Bogger (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a primary source and not quite related to the newspaper; U Magazine is the publication by the same publisher, but this article is about the newspaper. Matthew_hk tc 14:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  no problem,. Thanks for improving the redirect and moving the content Bogger (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional source
Talk:Carl Zeidler

message: When was he born? Is he still alive? When did he serve as mayor?  Wondering simply, -- Infrogmation 09:12, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: He was pictured in LIFE and mentioned at least three times in Time before he enlisted, to mention just the two easiest to google for. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 17:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  National attention before he enlisted in the service 

message: This encyclopedia entry has one vague sentence about the "Early years" of Carl Zeidler. In December 2020 an attempt was made to provide substantial facts that would improve that paragraph. The entry was soon deleted by a Wikipedia editor. Anyone seeking that information should contact me (Michael E. Zeidler, Milwaukee WI, USA) personally.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Edward Zeidler (talk • contribs) 23:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Your attempt at "providing substantial facts that would improve that paragraph" was not cited at all and fails WP:VERIFY. Please read WP:ORIGINAL. Lettlerhello • contribs 23:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

text: Michael, none of the material you added was cited to any published sources. Some of it was also in violation of our rules about neutral point of view. (For example: I may feel that of all the people I've worked with in politics, Frank Zeidler was the closest thing to a saint I ever knew; but that opinion of mine, based on knowing him for thirty-plus years, has no place in an article about him.) --Orange Mike | Talk 23:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early life of Carl F. Zeidler
Talk:The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock

message: I think The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock in popular culture should be merged into The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock as the former article is poorly developed and of uncertain notability, while this article could easily handle what is there already. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's not notable enough for a separate article, why would it be notable enough as a section, or sub-section, here in the main article?  The notability is determined by the content, which, at this point, is notable.  The question is still management whether here or there.  Look back through the edit history and see how many times "popular culture" sections were created, deleted, recreated, etc.  It is best to keep it separate and well-maintained than to continue that back-and-forth here. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 16:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *I wouldn't mind deleting it entirely, as previous bits of "in popular culture" have gone down the drain. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but as an academic, a longtime contributor, and one who wishes Wikipedia to become something that can be offered as a convenient and reliable educational source, I have to suggest that the separate existence of this short pop culture article is wholly self- (editor- and Wikipedia process-) serving, and is not in any sense a service to encyclopedia readers. The foregoing decision-making regarding the course of the two articles appears to be an example where common sense was over-ruled by editorial fiat of a few most-opinionated parties, with truncation of discussion without seeking a wider consensus, or the opinions of those with the larger view of how Wikipedia wishes such articles to evolve. (For fear of what might result if the wider consensus was sought?) Do with this pair of articles as you please, they are your articles clearly. But it makes no objective sense — as the foregoing feeble "argument" in support of the status quo makes very clear — to have a short, clearly related, and utterly dependent article remain as a separate entity (however much easier its being separate might be for those involved). 71.239.87.100 (talk) 06:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge request 

message: The chorus of the Grateful Dead classic song "Dark Star" features the lines "Shall we go them you and I while we can" which the lyricist Robert Hunter lifter from The Love Song Of J. Alfred Prufrock" The song was originally recorded in 1967 but a 23 minute live recording of the song from 27 Februarybecame a favourite of Grateful Dead fans including Francis Ford Coppola when released on the album Live/Dead in 1969.  Thisrecording is possibly an important reference point for later modern cultural references to the poem 2A02:8084:90C3:4C80:B86D:FBE5:33A5:E38D (talk) 16:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dark Star
Talk:Patent medicine

message: I've added Swaim's Panacea to the see also list, it was a very popular 19th century patent medicine, even after they took the mercury out of it!--Milowent • hasspoken 14:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Swaim's Panacea]] 

message: The History of aspirin Wikipedia article has a Rights and sale section with this text, "Under Carl Duisberg's leadership, Bayer was firmly committed to the standards of ethical drugs, as opposed to patent medicines. Ethical drugs were drugs that could be obtained only through a pharmacist, usually with a doctor's prescription. Advertising drugs directly to consumers was considered unethical and strongly opposed by many medical organizations; that was the domain of patent medicines. Therefore, Bayer was limited to marketing Aspirin directly to doctors." This text has a reference to a book published in 2008. Thus Aspirin has a "reliable reference" to the fact that it is not a patent medicine. Nick Beeson (talk) 03:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aspirin