lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Central Única dos Trabalhadores

message: This article has no sources whatsoever; is completely unreliable. It is significantly longer, more detailed and one-sided than the equivalent article in Portuguese. In all honesty, it smells like propaganda.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.111.255.26 (talk) 06:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Castelvecchio Museum

message: I am fairly sure that the installation is attributed to Richard Meier incorrectly, and that it actually belongs to Peter Eisenman.  DVD+ R/W 20:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Il giardino dei passi perduti
Talk:Symphony No. 20 (Mozart)

message: When I hear this recently I thought it could never have been written by Wolfgang; it seemed fairly immature, lacking direction and structure; to me it sounded like a composition by some minor Mozart contemporary. I was surprised to hear it was by HIM with a number as high as 20.
Am I alone in this?
/nick willink,exeter uk
:At age 16 (admittedly, more than a third of the way through his life). Some of his earlier symphonies do very well (though I disagree with the author of this article that bringing in the second theme in the recapitulation first is a coup; in how many mature Mozart compositions does one find it? A few, but not many.  Composers who imitate it badly are (to paraphrase Thorpe-Davie) working from an image of music on paper, not in time)... but especially his symphony no. 14 in A and no. 19 in E-flat are striking.  
:That said... just one year after writing this symphony, in late 1773, Mozart wrote a piano concerto, his fifth (or first surviving original concerto. Hrm, deserves an article.. hrm.), which is one of his most inspired instrumental -- emphasis on! - works up to that point, I think... though one waits until K. 271 after that in that genre anyway...
:Still, even though concertos 6-8 are more or less pleasant things (and no. 7 is one of the least "prepossessing" of the 27), Mozart's early piano concertos - POV, in my honest but subjective opinion, etc. - are more inspired than his early symphonies. (And for that matter... the overall sets taken as a whole, though the last half-dozen symphonies are, no argument, stunning.)
: Especially after one gets to concerto no. 14 which is one dozen years after this symphony, and the concertos written in 1784 (piano concertos (there are articles right now on concertos 17 and 18  but 14-19 were all written that year), a year that-- for any interested parties as might not know this (sorry)... also saw the quintet for piano and winds,  one of the quartets dedicated to Haydn (the quartet in B♭ "Hunt") and the piano sonata in C minor as well. Schissel | Sound the Note! 04:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Weekend at Burnsie's

message: Toward the end Homer comments that pot can even make "that show that comes on after Friends" funny. What show is this referring to? Shouldn't this be in the cultural references section? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.229.12.103 (talk) 03:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked on the website and it says....well...SIMPSONS --Xinjinbei 22:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And yes, i added it to cultural references --Xinjinbei 22:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  after Friends 

message: About the part that says this is banned from channel 4....well that's a load of bull, cause i've seen this episode twice and i don't even have sky. so i couldn't have watched it anywhere else... 86.165.69.61 (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Channel 4
Talk:Robert Hart (horticulturist)

message: This is a copyvio as i found it:
:"Obviously, few of us are in a position to restore the forests.. But tens of millions of us have gardens, or access to open spaces such as industrial wastelands, where trees can be planted. and if full advantage can be taken of the potentialities that are available even in heavily built up areas, new "city forests" can arise..." (Robert A.de J.Hart)
Relevant info for his bio can be extracted from it, and there might be value to a discussion of the ideas that would justify quoting all or part of it.--Jerzy•t 20:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Fletcher v. Peck

message: Removed unsourced POV commentary from []:
:In the course of the westward push for the control of Indian lands, the state of Georgia took from the Indians...
Unless there are legislative records that this was in fact the nefarious motivation involved, it seems unwarranted here. Georgia was simply exercising its right to land claimed from the British Crown following the Revolution. There may be a place for commentary on the fact it no longer wished to maintain the region as an Indian Reserve, but it doesn't seem to touch on this case. -LlywelynII (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:NPOV]]

message: Question: If this involved Mississippi and Georgia, where did the "Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts" get involved with this? 68.39.174.238 20:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Mississippi didn't exist yet, but I'd imagine Mass. got involved because it was the original venue, presumably because it's where plaintiff lives where or the land sale occurred. -LlywelynII (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Jurisdiction

message: Umm, I think this article needs more detail but less complexity with the syntax. 67.35.94.120 (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to law. Although cleanup is good. -LlywelynII (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  improve detail and syntax 
Talk:Siege of Ta'if

message: I just wished the other aticles relating to this would be sourced. Misdemenor (talk) 05:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looks good 

message: The event of the siege is correctly dated to the year 630 of the Christian Era. However, the corresponding year given in the Hijri Era, 10 AH, is plainly wrong, and should be amended to 8 AH. Abulmiskafur (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong year in the Christian Era
Talk:Battle of Khaybar

message: In my personal opinion, this article should be renamed from "Battle of Khaybar"----->"Siege of Khaybar"
as per Merriam Webster definition of warfare involving permanent defensive structure:
a : a military blockade of a city or fortified place to compel it to surrender
b : a persistent or serious attack (as of illness)
2 obsolete : a seat of distinction : throne
lay siege to
1 : to besiege militarily
2 : to pursue diligently or persistently
link to Merriam Webster
while from wikipedia itself, Siege were defined by
A siege is a military blockade of a city, or fortress, with the intent of conquering by attrition, or a well-prepared assault. This derives from Latin: sedere, lit. 'to sit'.[1] Siege warfare is a form of constant, low-intensity conflict characterized by one party holding a strong, static, defensive position. Consequently, an opportunity for negotiation between combatants is not uncommon, as proximity and fluctuating advantage can encourage diplomacy. The art of conducting and resisting sieges is called siege warfare, siegecraft, or poliorcetics. 
This is typically coupled with attempts to reduce the fortifications by means of siege engines, artillery bombardment, mining (also known as sapping), or the use of deception or treachery to bypass defenses. 
applied for for Khaybar conflict as it is mentioned that each fortresses were subdued through deceptions and catapult or Dabbabah/battering ram.Ahendra (talk) 04:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not really seeing any sources that use the word "siege." I'd suggest staying with the current name per WP:COMMONNAME. PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 21:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

text: A "siege" also doesn't seem to quite match up with the narrative presented here. That at least makes it sounds like the defenders met the Muslims in open combat outside of their defenses. In which case it would be a battle, likely followed by a siege after the defenders fell back. Brasswatchman (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming request 

message: Was Khaybar a massacre because according to modern jews it is? 81.100.240.135 (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: From the sound of things, I don't think there's any way for anyone to know for certain at this point. One could debate whether or not the attack was fair and if Banu Nadir actually posed a threat to Medina at that point, but that seems to me like something that would depend heavily on one's point of view. Regardless, it doesn't sound like the defenders were unarmed and unprepared. Take this guy for instance, who seems to have died in honorable single combat with Ali. No dirty tricks or cheating there on either side, for whatever it's worth. Brasswatchman (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was Khaybar a massacre  

message: Out of curiosity, what were the original primary or historical sources for the information we have on this battle? Does the Quran or certain hadiths talk about it? I presume that the information must've been originally from Muslim sources. Thanks. Brasswatchman (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original primary sources?
Talk:List of rivers of Scotland

message: The ten major rivers of Scotland, in order of length, are:
#River Tay  193 km (120 miles)
#River Spey 172 km (107 miles) 
#River Clyde 171 km (106 miles)  
#River Tweed 156 km (97 miles)  
#River Dee 137 km (85 miles)  
#River Don 132 km (82 miles)  
#River Forth 105 km (65 miles)   
#River Findhorn 101 km (63 miles)   
#River Deveron 98 km (61 miles)   
#River Annan 79 km (49 miles)
--MacRusgail 20:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: By length

message: I have added a few more of the largest watercourses in Orkney, Shetland and Lewis and separated out into island groups. I was going to delete the reference to Mill Dam Burn on Shapinsay as being utterly insignificant - in a list of rivers of Scotland - but haven't - the accompanying image would need to go to. Is there any good reason to keep it? Geopersona (talk) 06:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the photo should go anyway - it is not at all representative of the article (though fine for the Mill Dam article). Anyone got anything to replace it that would fit the bill? cheersGeopersona (talk) 05:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Island sections 

message: Following the approach taken in the companion List of rivers of Wales I have divided the list into various catchments to aid navigation around it. Hope folks find this agreeable. Geopersona (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm now in course of adding more rivers to the list, working my way up the east coast. Some surprisingly big ones had previously been omitted. Geopersona (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Have now done most of the additions of river catchments anticlockwise around the coast from Berwick to Mull of Kintyre and, due to the larger number of entries, have found it necessary to sub-divide the pre-existing sections to aid navigation within the list. I've attempted to make the divisions sensible ones from a geographical perspective - others may be able to suggest an improved way to achieve these ends. cheers  Geopersona (talk) 13:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Completed to Gretna. Geopersona (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catchments 

message: Please see the discussion Small streams - where do we draw the line? A proposal on the talk page at List of rivers of Wales. It is pertinent to this page too and its English equivalent. thanks Geopersona (talk) 08:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to include and what to leave out? 

message: List of rivers of England boasts a new map by Notuncurious whom I have asked on that article's talk page whether a similar map for this article might be possible. It would be good to have a map which portrays rivers more clearly - the current map wasn't constructed to serve the role it finds itself in. Geopersona (talk) 05:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New map?
Talk:Scout sign and salute

message: I'm in the BSA, so I'd like some feedback before making any changes, as things are different in other organizations.
*We don't salute other Scouts, only the flag.  When handing off the flag in a ceremony, it is the flag that is saluted, not the Scout.
*I never heard about this "bond".  Is this a tradition elsewhere or just a retcon?
*The second paragraph repeats elements of the first.
*As far as I can see, the only difference is how the salute is presented is in palm out (Commonwealth style) or palm in (US style).
*Canadian Scouts do the salute vertically?
--Gadget850 ( Ed) 18:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critique 

message: I propose that this article be expanded to include:
*The two-fingers salute used in Cub Scouting
*The four finger salute used in Venturing (Boy Scouts of America)
*The Scout sign, Cub Scout sign and Venturing sign that is a variation of the salute.
As such, it should then be renamed to Scout sign and salute.  Scout Sign currently redirects to this article.  Per the BSA Language of Scouting, sign and salute are lower case- we would need to decide if that fits all the programs.
--Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand and rename 

message: I cleaned up the Cub Scout section of two-fingers salute.  I suggest we drop the project tags on that page as I don't really see it as Scouting relevant now.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two-fingers salute 

message: When I was a young scout in the Netherlands I was taught that the full salute could only be offered if the saluter was wearing full uniform including headgear. Half-salute was to be given when not complying to those conditions. 
The distinction between half-salute and sign is a new one on me. From my time as a Troup Leader with the Sea Scouts (Schipper) I remember that when taking the oath of a new member, the entire troup/watch (officers included) would gather and offer half-salute during the actual pronouncement.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwaptiva (talk • contribs) 07:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Half vs Full salute 

message: Haven't checked each individual edit, but 50 edits ago, 100 edits ago, and 150 edits ago, this article included the questionable description "with the fingertips on the brow of the head". Based on skimming the rest of the article, that does not seem factually accurate... or logically possible: unless maybe referring to the temple as part of the forehead,Wiktionary partly defines the  as being behind the forehead. how can the fingertips touch the forehead if the palm is supposed to face out?
i can only guess that editors more familiar than i am with this hand configuration (confingeration?) intend the line to mean "with the fingertips held level with the brow of the head", but for me to put that in the article would be unverified speculation.
:I suspect you will find that this is something that varies from country to country. HiLo48 (talk) 00:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  fingers NOT touching head
Talk:Fort William F.C.

message: "Due to them being" ???
Holy crap they are shite  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.235.37 (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

message: I see https://www.reddit.com/r/Scotland/comments/ig9jia/ive_discovered_that_almost_every_single_article/g2sq4vh/?context=3 so it's being done in bad faith
WhisperToMe (talk) 18:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admission of vandalism
Talk:Larkin Administration Building

message: *Reference request to wikify.  Could you please clarify.  I do not believe in excessive wikification of dates.  The place and architect are linked.  Other potential links, such as the now-defunctcompany would go to red links and I doubt whether their articles will ever be written, if they are, the editors would find their way here - the most notable thing about the company in 2005 to the outside world is this building.--A  Y  Arktos 20:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Algerian Muslim Scouts

message: Scouting in Algeria redirects here, but there is also a Guiding organization. This also breaks the rule of covering multiple NSOs in another NSO article. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk -  12:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scouting in Algeria 
Talk:Associação de Escuteiros de Angola

message: I propose we rename this article. This change is proposed in order to bring this foreign-language Scouting article title into compliance with the spirit of both  WikiProject Scouting - Rules Standards, Article names and Wikipedia:Naming conventions. The discussion about this is currently taking place at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scouting/Translations#Proposed_article_name_changes. --evrik (talk) 22:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please list at WP:RM. Patstuarttalk|edits 07:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article renaming
Talk:Casanare Department

message: To add to this article: the etymology of the word "Casanare." 173.88.246.138 (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: To add to article
Talk:Micheál Ó Hehir

message: I believe the man's name was Michael O'Hehir, but his involvement in Gaelic Games led to him being called Mícheál by others, to which he never objected as it did his Gaelic credibility no harm. In any event, the name of this article could not be right, as the Christian name should be either Michael or Mícheál, not Micheál, and the surname should be either O'Hehir or Ó hEithir, but not Ó Hehir. Does anybody object to the article being renamed to Michael O'Hehir?
 
No problem, go ahead and change it to Michael O'Hehir - that's what the RTE website seems to use.  Maybe also add an item in the text to the alternatives that maje sense, as you point out.   JXM 02:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name
Talk:Test particle

message: Test particles are not unique to general relativity.  They are also used in classical electrodynamics.  In fact, the only place most people will ever hear about them is in their freshman physics class. Strait 21:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Give us a chance!  This is currently just a stub, but be assured there are many interesting and important issues involving test particles which we hope to discuss in this an other articles, at a level suitable for this encyclopedia, which do involve gtr in an essential way.  Please see Eric Poisson's recent review.  Thanks for your impatience-- it helps motivate us to get back to work here! ---CH 01:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Who Cares About Test Particles in GTR? 

message: I created the original version of this article and had been monitoring it, but I am leaving the WP and am now abandoning this article to its fate.
Just wanted to provide notice that I am only responsible (in part) for the last version I edited; see User:Hillman/Archive.
I emphatically do not vouch for anything you might see in more recent versions, although I hope for the best.
Good luck in your search for information, regardless!---CH 18:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Students beware

message: There aren't many sources provided, most of them being old and not focusing on test mass exactly. I wanted to know because the concept of "test mass" in mentioned briefly in my Physics textbook when it talks about gravitational fields. However, searching "test mass" on the internet mostly gives articles about Covid-19 mass testing. The only useful source I could find was this article, however it doesn't link to any further reading explaining, for example, what physical properties would be measured for a test mass and which ones wouldn't be measured. 95.148.181.107 (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources/Further Reading?
Talk:Primase

message: I think DNA_Primase should have its own page. Sentriclecub (talk) 11:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: first paragraph refers to eukaryotic primase, yet it says Polymerase I and III are used in the DNA synthesis. 
to my understanding Polymerase I and III are bacterial enzymes, while eukarotic Polymerases are referred to as alpha through eta polymerases. Polymerase III function is replaced by Polymerases alpha and delta and to the best of my knowledge Polymerase I has no formal eukaryotic equivalent.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin fed (talk • contribs) 22:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  possibple error: DNA Polymerase I and III referred to as eukaryotic enzymes? 

message: I've deleted the previous opening paragraph as it contained several errors and was generally inaccruate. sorry.
With that said, I do agree that the definition of "primase" is far for complete and that there is a need for text detailing how primase works (priming)- bridging between "primase" and the concept of the "primer".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin fed (talk • contribs) 00:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  primase+primers= priming 

message: So isn't it duplicative to start by saying it is an "RNAP enzyme?" JoshNarins (talk) 13:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isn't every polymerase an enzyme?
Wikipedia talk:Starter toolset

message: Included Cat tags for 
 and *
 forgetting that these tags would be copied along with everything else.  User:Radiant! was good enough to catch my faux pas.  Accomplished a "work-around" tout suit. (Check out "Toolset" in either of these Cats.) ⇒  normxxx|  talk  ⇒  email 21:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category Tags 

message: I have categorized this page finally. If anyone has any objections to which category this page belongs to, please inform me about this. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As the users copy and paste this page into their userspaces, they populate :Category:Wikipedia tools with their copies of that page. I am going to change the category of this page to subcategory of this category, :Category:Wikipedia users' toolsets, to reduce clutter in the above category.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorized
Talk:French Democratic Confederation of Labour

message: As best as I can tell, according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions this article should be under the English translation of the title. The same applies to most of the articles in :Category:French trade unions. Am I missing something? -Rholton 02:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know there is discussion about using the name that is familiar in English - (Solidarity,Médecins Sans Frontières ). I can't find it right now, but I've seen discusion about a couple Frech trade unions as well. That being said, I've moved a number of pages myself, so I don't know what's best here. :)--Bookandcoffee 10:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: English titles?

message: The phrase used here seems to refer to industrial sectors. In English the term 'profession' refers to a specific class of employment - doctors, lawyers etc - rather than all employees. Should the title be changed to reflect English usage? Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Professional' elections
Talk:Physical memory

message: This should definitely NOT be merged... -- 213.122.51.52 13:20, 22 January 2006
They should not be merged.  On the other hand, the entry for Physical memory should lose some details that really belong to Primary memory.
DHR 05:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think we should first discuss the difference of the two, then decide whether the articles should be merged. 0612 05:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Talk:General Confederation of Labour (France)

message: "During May 1968 in France, the CGT was criticized by the far-left because its leader Georges Séguy had signed the Grenelle agreements with Prime Minister Georges Pompidou, it was _assimilated_ as a betrayal of the revolution." my _emphasis_.
Anyone know what this means?  For assimilated should we substitute described?
Gravuritas (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  1.2.1 Alliance and union of the left- not understood