lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Invisible theater

message: * :Invisible theater →  — Most-common spelling for article titles. — 
*More specifically, consistency with parent topic, Theatre. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with that being...? DionysosProteus (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move? 

message: The "Purpose" section is completely un-cited.
The "Common Misconceptions" section is similarly un-cited, but also includes much more opinion. "This is a gross mistake" is clearly opinion. Also in reference to the "Free Hugs campaign" it says: "This could be considered Invisible Theatre, as it is not a joke or a punk, but again as it has no basis in oppression it is not Invisible Theatre." this is again un-cited and seems to look like opinion.
What are other people's thoughts on this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackfifield (talk • contribs) 21:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article appears to have a lot of opinion
Talk:Leo Clarke (VC)

message: Anyone else notice that date of his death at the top of the page Sep 9, doesn't match the date in the body, Oct 16?  I don't know which is the accurate one so I didn't change it but someone should.Logan 5 03:01, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dates don't match

message: I deleted the claim that leo Clarke 'was the first time the VC had been presented to a commonwealth recipient in his own country'. Three of the four Canadian Boer War recipients were presented with their awards in Canada and 50 years earlier than Clarke the first Commonwealth VC was presented to New Zealander Charles Heaphy in New Zealand. --Anthony Staunton (talk) 11:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: first time the VC had been presented to a commonwealth recipient in his own country
Talk:Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme

message: I have a 1988 cutlass supreme brougham and its a rear wheel drive, I saw that you did not mention it.
:Are you sure it's not a Cutlass Supreme Classic or something else? --ApolloBoy 19:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be Cutlass Supreme Classic Brougham, which I think is one of the longer car names out there. It wouldn't surprise me if some '88 owners at one point removed the "Cutlass Supreme Classic" badge and replaced it with the old one, that may be where your confusion lies. --Sable232 15:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1988 olds 

message: Once I figure out where to start. The first Olds Cutlass was a trimline for a '62 F-85. So there was a whole 'nother generation before what's listed.Dagorlad 00:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More to do on this 

message: David hunsacker wouldnt know a "true classic" if it ran him over. Tell us about the shody workmanship, the cheap plastic interiors and the rusting out of the rear bumper support which caused the rear bumpers to literaly fall off. Perhaps we should bring up these points in the article, along with the low performance 260 V-8 which was nearly impossible to keep in tune. These junk wagons could not compete with the craftsmanship of the 1977 Ford Thunderbird which displaced the cutlass as a top seller. Busceda (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: What?

message: i have a beautiful olds for sale. the body is great and the interior is almost perfect...its not running just right and i can't afford to fix it...this car deserves a good home 
```` —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.51.210.230 (talk) 06:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  oldsmobile cutlass supreme international series 

message: Fourth gen. Cutlass Supremes rock (in my opinion).  I mean the aerodynamic ones from 1981-1988, not the heavy, weird-looking ones.  Crazykrazyqrazy (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: '81-'88

message: Those aren't 66-67 Cutlass Supremes, they are 1968 and 69 Cutlasses/442s. BlackSabbath1996 (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  1st gen pictures 

message: This section is in the wrong article. If you follow the link, you see Mike Lawn standing beside a 1986 Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera, which was the front-wheel drive midsize Oldsmobile for 1986, not the rear-drive model as in this article. I would move it myself but wanted to gather consensus as to whether or not this even belongs in a Wikipedia article. Seems rather inconsequential to me. 99.228.54.191 (talk) 16:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hilary Clinton's Car 

message: The 1970 was not the equivalent of the Pontiac Grand Prix.  Maybe, someone is thinking of the Chevrolet Monte Carlo, which was related to the Grand Prix, though not the same.  Both were offshoots of the A-Body, which the Cutlass was.  It may have been similar in "flavor", as a personal luxury car, especially the Cutlass SX, but it was not more related than others in the series.
Nantucketnoon (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Info
Talk:Raso lark

message: The Birdlife International Website lists this guy as razo lark and I just created a article on the razo skylark! how do I change that? Sabine 05:18, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: HBW, which is our standard source, uses the name you've given. Many species have alternative names, just make a redirect to the Wikipedia (=HBW) one - I'll do it for this one. jimfbleak 06:57, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  eep! 

message: The picture for the Raso Lark bird is gone i was wondering when someone is going to fix this! thanks in advance.RollyGem 16:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem 

message: it is badly written, out of date and very inaccurate (the author even confuses Branco and Raso at one point!).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.148 (talk) 10:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  this article needs fixing!
Talk:Landsberg

message: Maybe instead of fighting, someone can post a link to a contemporary German-published map with names of the towns?
--Gene s 06:02, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

message: Still think we can merge Landsberg with Landsburg.--Akrasia25 (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Landsburg currently redirects to Landsberg (I didn't notice that until after I reverted your edit!) and there are very few article titles that contain 'Landsburg'. I would suggest adding the people to Landsberg (surname), perhaps in a subsection? The only other 'Landsburg' article is Alan Landsburg Productions, and that seems like an unambiguous partial title match to me. Leschnei (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge
Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Ta bu shi da yu 1

message: I have recently come to the realization that my vote in this RFA was misplaced, as this admin has shown improper behavior with regards to their granted privileges.  As such, I rescind my support. -- Netoholic @ 06:57, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)
:That's fine. Have you told a Wikipedia:bureaucrat? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:59, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy

message: This article was split off from a section in U.S. presidential election, 2004 into it's own page.  Unfortunately, that move has opened it up to massive expansion - overshadowing the real impact of this issue as reported in external sources. 
:(correction-this article was at no time a split off - FT2)'
::(also note: Netoholic modified significantly a whole section from the U.S. presidential election, 2004 article ) - Ta bu shi da yu 02:55, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

message: All shifted back to the main page, as the talk page doesn't show on VfD!!! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:55, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments section from main page
Talk:Cult/Archive 2

message: David, I reverted your remark that CESNUR was funded by Scientology. I could not find any references for it and I strongly believe it to be incorrect. Andries 20:35, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: To start you off, here is a Usenet post by Anton Hein (Apologetics Index) on the murkiness of the funding arrangements of CESNUR and of the academic study of NRMs in general.  You are correct, in that it's not just Scientology paying them. But CESNUR are essentially paid public relations for the groups they write about. Compare Alexis de Tocqueville Institution and the tobacco industry. A reference supported by a study from CESNUR cannot reasonably be considered more than a press release with foot notes - David Gerard 00:02, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: David, we discussed this in another article's talk page (forgot which one) and you agreed with me that it was a mistake  on your part to attribute CESNUR to Scientology. --Zappaz 00:51, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: The Wikipedia reader will detect the ad hominem argument here, which diverts attention from analytic statements by casting doubt on the funding or motivation of the speaker/writer. Wetman 00:59, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: CESNUR

message: Thanks in advance Andries 11:19, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: To do: Can somebody include the definition by [[Roy Wallis]]?

message: The checklist suggests that there can be nothing wrong with a groups if it does not fulfill the checklist. That is what I really believed. Well, my former group did not really did not seem to fulfill several cecklists but there is sooooo much wrong with it.  Andries 20:01, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Can somebody please enlighten me?

message: I borrowed the book from the university libray but have not yet read it. I only glanced at the relevant chapter (nr. 22) Andries 18:24, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Ed, Lifton's checklist is called thought reform, not brainwashing
Talk:Te Urewera National Park

message: Alphabetically would this get filed under T or U? Many people know it simply as Urewera National Park. Grutness 08:57, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Sorting

message: Do you think this might be a better image for the infobox? It shows the extent of the park rather than just being a dot on a map which is quite nice. Ballofstring (talk) 05:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it would be nicer if you used :File:New_Zealand_relief_map.jpg as the base map. --Dick Bos (talk) 09:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox image 

message: The link appears dead, and checking the last valid version of it on the WayBack machine (https://web.archive.org/web/20160520112841/https://www.thousandwonders.net/Te+Urewera#history) doesn't turn up anything related to the name relating to "Burnt Penis", or any references to any kind of corresponding legend in that area. Techno156 (talk) 07:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I have replaced the citation with a different source. Content in this section could be usefully expanded, particularly if other more authoritative sources can be found.Marshelec (talk) 07:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Section Source?
Talk:Inconsistencies in the Bible/Archive 1

message: Do you think it possible to seperate the above list into groups, roughly corresponding with the article, so that we can see
*if there are better examples, or ones that raise more information or issues
*if there is a group or groups that the article currently misses
CheeseDreams 19:49, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't prevent it from spawning a good article though did it? CheeseDreams 21:28, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The above text
Talk:Twingle engine

message: This article is really more than a stub, but I think it needs some diagrams before it can be seen as complete.
There are diagrams at two of the external links, but I'm not convinced either is accurate (quite apart from copyright). The one of the later engine shows the inlet and exhaust ports on the same side of the cylinder, and both operated by the same piston, which is contradicted by photos at one of the other sites which show a conventional layout with two exhaust pipes emerging from the front of the cylinder block and the inlet manifold at the rear. I think this diagram is schematic only and should say this, and possibly inaccurate. Also the proportions of the cylinders and con rods are wrong IMO. The one of the earlier engine does not show the transfer port clearly at all. Andrewa 09:23, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

message: Many engines have been changed so that both cylinders fire at the same time.  This is my experience with the use of the term, "twingle" (a twin that fires as a single).  Harley Davidsons with their 45 degree V twin setup were said to have been "twingled" when they were set to fire 45 degrees apart instead of the normal 315/405 degree separation.  Nowadays, I believe the term "big bang" is popular for that setup because it can include more cylinders firing at the same time or very close together.
I think there should either be a disambiguation page or this definition should be added to this page. --Mud4t 22:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about 4 cycle twins that fire both cylinders at once? 

message: I remember reading about a DKW racing motorcycle engine with three cylinders but one combustion chamber.  In essence, the two outside cylinders were mounted vertically and formed a Twingle or split-single unit, while the middle cylinder was mounted horizontally (facing forward in the frame), had a larger bore and a smaller stroke, and was essentially a supercharger for the other cylinders.
Does anyone have any documentation for this engine?  I think the motorcycles it powered were successful racers at the time. Respectfully, SamBlob (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  DKW racing engine of the 1930s
Talk:Old Bolsheviks

message: Can Trotsky really be considered an old bolshevik?
The article defines an old bolshevik as someone who was a bolshevik before the october revolution. Trotsky, however, only joined the bolsheviks after the revolution begun. Perhaps he should be removed from the list? Seekallknowledge (talk) 11:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Isn't Trotsky also an old Bolshevik? He joined Lenin definitely before 1917 if I remember correctly. So why isn't he mentioned? LostCitrationHunter (talk) 08:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I came here to emphasize the opposite: The official party definition were people who'd joined Lenin before January or February 1905. By that definition, Trotsky was no Old Bolshevik. The only source in the article claiming otherwise (making people Old Bolsheviks if joining Lenin before the October Revolution) is tagged as either dubious or unverifiable, and itself refers to a single personal memory book by Chygayev from 1972. Anyways, what I wanted to say was that the tables in the latter half of the article should be corrected accordingly to go with the original party definition. Additionally, I think the part about those people executed during the Great Purges could be further divided into Trial of the Sixteen (Zinoviev-Kamenev, 1936), Trial of the Seventeen (Pyatakov-Radek, 1937), Trial of the Twenty-One (Rightists and Trotskyites, 1938), and Medvedev Forest massacre (1941). --2003:DA:CF4E:6333:9677:23B1:9206:D75F (talk) 10:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I did think "pre-1917" was a pretty lax definition, from my understanding. I didn't know it was an official term in any capacity. Remsense诉 19:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we can limit ourselves to list only those who joined before the 1905 Revolution. I have no objection. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed those who joined the party after 1905. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trotsky old Bolsheviks
Talk:Sonny Jurgensen

message: Most of the text of this article is stolen from the Hall of Fame website.  I'm finding this problem with many players.  In this case, it was added in a December 2005 edit from an anonymous poster. I'm removing the offending text.  Someone else will have to come up with something suitable, perhaps from versions that existed prior to Deceomber 2005. Anson2995 23:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright Violation

message: Need to add something about his pro basketball career, which was concurrent with his pro football career.
Also, that he was an outstanding (All Pro, I think??) defensive back for the first part of his career, since many pro football players "played both ways", i.e., had starting positions on both the offensive and defensive squads.
You are talking about college football, not pro. Sonny never played DB in the NFL. 198.45.193.38 (talk) 03:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Comments
Talk:Owain Gwynedd

message: Does anyone knows what where the arms of Owain Gwynedd? I saw somewhere (I think it was on the Civic Heraldry of England and Wales website) that Owain Gwynedd used three eagles on his arms? Can anyone confirm that? Make a picture? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thomas de Vernet (talk • contribs) 11:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Owain's coat of arms? 

message: In this article: 
In 1155 Cadwaladr was driven into exile.
In Kingdom of Gwynedd article:
Again an accord was reached, with Cadwaladr retaining Aberffraw until a more serious breach occurred in 1153, when he was forced into exile in England, where his wife was the sister of Gilbert de Clare, 2nd Earl of Hertford and the niece of Ranulph de Gernon, 2nd Earl of Chester.[20][21]
At least one of those appears to be wrong! Pbhj (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cadwalad[e]r exiled

message: I have added a paragraph about his adoption of the title "prince of the Welsh" now. The source I have added is:
*
This source is an excellent read and we could say more about the title here, but would need to consider what is due. The source is in line with (Turvey, 2013) in its discussion of why he adopted this title, and both note the matter is not certain, but point out that Henry was angered by this. This source also notes that Owain was the first to establish international diplomacy at all, and to self reference using the Anglo-Saxon derived term "Welsh".  The discussion suggests, in line with (Turvey, 2002) that the adoption of the term prince was a reaction to how the Welsh were being treated in Anglo-Norman sources that were hostile and contemptuous. This source goes with the view that the term was deliberately chosen in response to this hostility as an ironic response to the prejudices. I am sure we can make more use of this, so leaving the reference here in the hope of more eyes on it, and a considered view as to what we can and should say from it. 
Notes
*Turvey, R. (2002). The Welsh Princes: The Native Rulers of Wales 1063-1283. Routledge.
*Turvey, R. (2013). Owain Gwynedd Prince of the Welsh. Y Lolfa.
Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: , I am happy to leave both prince of Wales and Prince of the Welsh per your edit today, but note that Waliarum Princeps literally means prince of the Waleses (i.e. genitive plural, Waliarum), which, per your source, was no doubt to assert lordship over all the kingdoms, and not a single unified Welsh kingdom/principality. To me, that is "prince of the Welsh" by another name, but it could also be "prince of all Wales", and thus "prince of Wales". Leaving both in is ok by me though. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prince of the Welsh
Talk:Hamiltonian constraint

message: It is incomprensible.
It is with no doubt copied from somewhere and is excerpted from somewhere as clear from the sentence "So, using Occam's razor again (we used it the first time ...) ...". 
It is obviously copied from a (may be copiright or may be free copirighted) article, book or note of an advanced course of theoric physics. I have a degree in Physics but I can not understand it, in the sense that I could neither read it. It is only an excerpt. It does not explain the argument. It is ruther far from the article wanted in wikipedia. For me, as well maybe copyvio it is a candidate to WP:VFD AnyFile 12:04, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

message: I have cleaned up a bit.  Anyone who fancies the challenge of further improving should probably at least read Hamiltonian mechanics first, unless they know this stuff already. Rich Farmbrough 21:56, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyedit 

message: I feel that the archived version is actually better than the present one in some aspects, since the Hamiltonian constraint arises from any theory that admits a Hamiltonian and is reparametrisation-invariant. The present article only talks about loop quantum gravity while even classical general relativity has this constraint. Even non-relativistic particle dynamics has this, for example, if you consider the Jacobi action. Of course, in all but the quantum gravity case the constraint does not pose real problems for the theories and is rarely discussed (many books on classical GR doesn't even mention the Hamiltonian formulation at all), but that doesn't mean they are not important (since you have to understand them before going to the quantum gravity case).
It is nonetheless very obvious that the archived version is simply a lifting from some paper or book that a person who would want to look it up has almost no hope of comprehension at all. My idea is to first write something brief about it in the Hamiltonian mechanics article and then refer to this article where here it is explained in more details, including its significance in the quantum case. Anyone has any comments or different ideas? Amadeoh 15:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article too narrow 
Talk:^ ^

message: NPOV anyone? I think the whole "or those impersonating them" thing is out of place. I used this smily back in the day. Fot it from a half Chinese-Japanese American. Anyone know more about the history of this smilie? Jeshii 12:11, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
Zerg rush kekeke ^____^ --SPUI 12:16, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Poland)

message: I moved this article back to "Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Poland" in an effort to fit in with other Polish ministries, which is IMHO more important than fitting in with other MOFAs. Moreover, nothing links to "Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Poland)". Please do not revert my edit. EPWA airport (talk) 07:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article

message: 'The MSZ's new extension, Articom office building at 21 Szucha Avenue, which in 2011 displayed a large-scale version of Poland's, then-presidency of the Council of the European Union'
Does this mean that there was an artwork or projection on the exterior of the building related to / inspired by the presidency? What sorts of things did it show?  
Regards to all,
Notreallydavid (talk) 14:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear picture caption