lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Zhongma Fortress

message: In Factories of Death by Sheldon H. Harris, the facility is referred to as the "Zhong Ma Prison Camp" and its main building as the "Zhong Ma Castle." Should not the the title of the article be "Zhong Ma Prison Camp," then, rather than "Zongma Fortress?" (I would assume, BTW, Zhongma/Zhong Ma difference is from different Romanizations of Chinese. Whichever is pinyin ought to be used.) RobertM525 02:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Title
Talk:Shōji Yamagishi

message: Yamagishi is quickly described on p.53 of Sandra S. Phillips, "Currents in photography in postwar Japan", within Shōmei Tōmatsu: Skin of the Nation (Yale UP, 2004). Phillips -- who says that "friends and others referred to [Yamagishi] as the emperor of photography in Japan" -- claims that he became editor of Camera Mainichi in 1958. This needs checking. (She also calls CM one of a number of "small magazines"; other than by the standards of Holiday and Shutterbug, it certainly was not small, even in 1954.) -- Hoary 13:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yamagishi and ''Camera Mainichi''
Talk:Near North Side, Chicago

message: Is "Near North Side" a separate neighbourhood as well as the overall area ?  Or should it be removed from the list of neighbourhoods ?  -- Beardo 13:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Putting the list of stores in the middle of the entry is a bad idea.  Who is going to check this list every six months to determine which of these stores are still there?  At the very list they should be moved to the section at the bottom where the consulates and universities are listed although even then they would need to be checked frequently plus a list of new stores would also need to be checked Risssa (talk) 00:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Store list 
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stagecraft/Participants

message: So.... to join this project, I just edit the project page and add my name?  I'd like to get involved but won't have any time at all for at least 2 weeks.... so... not sure whether to add my name to the 'Active Participants' list now or then....  Charlie Richmond 13:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say just add your name to the inactive list and say when you think you'd be around and jump right in when you are there.  This way everyone knows you're interested and can include you in anything going on when you come back.  I'd also list what you're interested in working on.  That way if someone needs help with a certain type of article they know they can ask you.  --Lekogm 00:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Charlierichmond|Charlie Richmond]] wants to join

message: My name is Michael and I'm a techie.  I'm majoring in technical theater at a liberal arts college, emphasizing in lighting and sound design.  I recently wrote a stub about  Architectural Lighting Control Systems in the theater though I doubt that it is of much general interest.
I need to research Chariot and Poll style scenery for a design project.  Any resources you might have would be helpful.  I haven't seen anything about that on here so I'd be glad to start an article about it once I know more.  I'll also be researching scenery turntables which I could start an article on as well. - NeoPlatonist 12:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hi

message: I just wanted to say you guys have some excellent work here, great job. I would like to see some merges and the superstition removed. --71.107.212.156 19:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:
Talk:Ossicles

message: "Ossicle" also describes the small bones that make up the skeleton of the Starfish.  Should that be reflected here?
Although it might particularly refer to the auditory ossicles, the term is used for any small bone or calcified hard structure. (Henderson's dictionary of biological terms; functional anatomy of the vertebrates (Liem et al.))
Doctor floater (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ossicle should probably be a dab page. FunkMonk (talk) 06:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/KarlBunker

message: Hello, I've previously been involved in what could be regarded in a favourable light as informal mediation with Karl and I was nearly but not quite an advocate for Selmo. These comments are however just as a very ordinary editor.
My comments regarding the evidence presented so far:
:# reverting good faith edits - a single revert does not infringe any policy, guideline or essay.
:# reinsertion of weasel words - entirely appropriate, because this game may or may not have involved telepathy.
:# forcing his opinion into articles - again entirely appropriate.
:# calling contributions "moronic" - ok, a single infringement of WP:CIVIL.
:# forcing a controversial paragraph into an article - introducing verifiable information without a citation doesn't infringe policy.
:# removal of tags requesting citations - other citations provided this information, so not a policy infingement.
Overall, I would suggest you have produced evidence of a single infingement of WP:CIVIL, which isn't sufficient to sustain a RfA. Addhoc 13:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My problem with #2-3: the word "supposable" has been badlisted.-- Selmo (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would comment that WP:WTA gives examples of acceptable uses and this would qualify. Regardless, you don't have enough to sustain this RfC. Addhoc 21:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Watir Extension Toolkit

message: A draft of [Wet Web Tester] page has been put up. Till the review process is completed, I have put the activediscuss template. Once the review is completed and the activediscuss tag has been removed, I will be redirecting this (Watir Extension Toolkit)) page to point there. 
--Best regards, Raghu V 13:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Kartikeya

message: The Mahabharata mentions explicitly in the Vana Parva that Kartikeya married Devasena and they gave birth to many children, so he is not a bachelor and a misogynist at all, so please change that now itself. 2409:4072:193:D5BF:C273:C6F8:A714:FDE5 (talk) 08:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kartikeya and Devasena's martial status
Talk:Nuremberg U-Bahn

message: re: the claim that the Nuremberg U-Bahn is the first to mix automated and human driven trains, this is only correct in so far as a full service U-bahn system.
Starting in the 1960's the trial operation of automated trains on the Hainault - Woodford section  of the London Underground's Central Line also involved automated and human-driven trains using the same tracks. 
In addition, for a few years some British Railways freight and passenger trains were still using  the same section of railway - the last British Railways services ended around 1970. See here... http://citytransport.info/Automation.htm Spsmiler (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is indeed correct that the pulse code system, which operated the 1968 tube stock Victora line until today (if the recent tube upgrade plans come into frutition, they will be replaced by a system similar the one on the Central line or those used on many newer underground railway systems), was the first system of it kind in regular use. However although the service employes are fully trained drivers, who used to run the trains before, they are not involved in any aspect of train or operation during normal operation. In regular service the U2 line and it's U3 branch line are a fully driverless system (like the VAL in some french cities, line 14 of Paris Métro or people movers like the one at Stansted Airport or the upcoming ULTra PRT at Heathrow.87.182.247.73 (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Large parts of this article seem to be machine translated (badly) from the German edition of this article. Can somebody please have a look? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad machine translations 

message: Per this article in the local press (in German) it is extremely unlikely that anything beyond the southwestern branch of U3 to Gebersdorf is getting built in the foreseeable future... Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extensions after 2025 highly unlikely
Talk:Kathleen A. Blatz

message: Kathleen's spouse is Wheelock Whitney, not Jerome Blatz - Jerome is her father.
:Her husband is Wheelock Whitney, Jr. (There are articles on several people named Wheelock Whitney.) Jonathunder (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Spouse
Template talk:WikiProject Belgium

message: In light of the discussions about whether the Belgian flag alone adequately represents Belgium (see here), I've taken the liberty of drawing up an alternative version, which also features the flags of the Communities and the Regions. Perhaps this alternative version can serve as a compromise between the template that only uses the Belgian flag and the suggestions to replace this template for certain categories of articles with separate templates for the Communities and the Regions. --Ganchelkas 13:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, I'm replacing the original version.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Banner

message: Due to sizing problems - having the four pictures in addition to the main picture just didn't work - so I set up a code to remove them should someone use the small param.--danielfolsom 06:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Small

message: Instead of having the articles that use this template categorized as xxx Belgium-related articles, why not just keep it at xxx Belgium articles?. The categories may need to be moved as well, but it would bring the Belgium WikiProject more in line with the majority of other (country) wikiprojects (well I know Canada & China also go for the 'related' approach, but you don't see 'film-related' or 'biography-related' either) 195.177.83.221 (talk) 10:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed template change 

message: Is there any reason why the flag was changed to the coat of arms? The flag is certainly more recognizable, and mirrors the use of every other national wikiproject I can think of. Oreo Priest talk 15:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted to the flag because of the reasons I've mentioned above and the lack of an explanation for the original change. Oreo Priest talk 16:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag -> arms 

message: Replace the current version with the sandbox version (diff). Per consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Belgium#Template:WikiProject Belgium. Thanks. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 07:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 22 January 2020
Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Neo-Fascism

message: The questions being asked appear to me to be the wrong ones.
First, the question of whether the comments appear in a blog or an academic article is irrelevant. Juan Cole is a significant academic comentator on the politics of the Middle East. His principle means of communication is his blog. He also writes books, op-eds, is regularly invited to appear on discussion panels and media interviews. He is indisputably the author of the blog.
Blog comments are not in general noteworthy. They are noteworthy when they are on a top 100 ranked blog. Juan Cole's is the highest ranked academic blog on the truth laid bear at #54. The mere fact that the comments are on a blog rather than a newspaper should not be grounds for disqualification.
The most important issue is context. It is not the type of language he is uses lightly. In the referenced article he actually refers to a group of 10,000 protestors against the Sharon government in 2004. . Indeed in the second linked article Cole explictly denies calling Israel a facist or even a racist state .
The articles make it very clear that the charge of fascism is leveled against a particular wing of the Likud party which later became the party after Sharon defected to form Kadima. It is certainly not a new charge in Israeli politics, Kach was repeatedly accused of being neo-fascist and unlike the Likud splinter is outlawed in Israel as a political party and listed as a terrorist organization by the US State department.
More significantly though Cole also uses the term Fascist to refer to Islamists including Iranian figurehead Ahmadinejad.
The points made are certainly made by a notable source and are presented as a matter of argument rather than rhetoric. I don't think the same can be said of Arafat or Chavez in this regard.
:The notion that "[Blog comments] are noteworthy when they are on a top 100 ranked blog." is interesting. It does not appear in any WP guideline that I am aware of. Did you just invent that? Regardless, Cole's blog is not an academic blog. It is a personal blog, by an academic, but that does not make it an "academic blog"- it has no scholarly content, methods or practices. Quite the opposite. It uses non-scholarly langauge, ad-hominem argumentation, and in general is just a compilation of previously published material from the popular press. Using one blog (Truth laid bear) as a source for claims about another blog's reliability is pretty bizzare. You may feel strongly that 'The mere fact that the comments are on a blog rather than a newspaper should not be grounds for disqualification' - but WP policy is quite explicit that it is grounds for disqualification, expcept for some limited circumstances, which Cole's blog does not meet. Isarig 04:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cole is an expert on the Israel/Palestine issue
Talk:Anna Botting

message: Which edition of Look North did she work for? There are several. Anyone know? TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Look North 
Talk:Ski cap

message: There are a lot of mistakes in this article. For instance:
* The origin of what it (the article) calls "M43 field cap" (that is, Einheitsfeldmütze) is not properly Gebirgsjäger's Bergmütze but Austro-Hungarian Feldkappe. In fact, both Bergmütze and 1943 Einheitsfeldmütze were but several variants of Feldkappe, properly speaking.
* Austro-Hungarian Feldkappe was born in 1868, not 1906, and not only for mountain troops, but for the all AH Army; and it was the usual headwear of AH soldiers since then up to the end of the Empire. Moreover, it has stayed in both the Austrian and Hungarian military traditions. 
* So, the term "M43 field cap" can be used as an English name for a concrete model (Nazi M1943), but not as a name for a general typology of cap --the proper name of that typology would be Feldkappe.
* There was not any "M41 Camouflaged Field Cap". There was an M1940 Feldmütze (in Feldkappe style) for Afrika Korps only, and it was not camouflaged; it was effectively distributed beginning in 1941. There was also an M1942 getarnte Feldmütze, also in Feldkappe style, which was camouflaged, and it was for Waffen-SS use only --not for Wehrmacht. Wehrmacht used camouflaged field caps, certainly, but these were M43 caps.  
* the Chinese uniforms in the thirties were not German-supplied. The Chinese Feldkappe-style cap (M1929!) was its own design, and it was adopted long before this style of cap entered the German military tradition.Joan Rocaguinard (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 01:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Based in your suggestion, I made a bold edit and moved the oage to ski cap. --MPorciusCato (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Move proposal

message: The Edelweiss badge we refer to in the article and in the photos is not a proficiency badge, but an arm-of-service badge.  All members of Gebirgsjäger units wore that badge on the side of their caps, regardless of climbing ability.  For Gebirgsjäger who qualified as expert skiers, there was a version of the Edelweiss badge imposed over a pair of skis.
The Jäger detachments in the Wehrmacht had a similar badge, consisting of a sprig of three oak leaves.  It was also worn on the left side of the cap.
Both badges are used in the Bundeswehr today, too.
There was a badge for proficiency in mountaineering skills, the Heeresbergführer ("army mountain guide") badge.  It was awarded to qualified personnel and worn in the left breast pocket of the tunic.
Brian L Davis' "German Army Uniforms and Insignia 1933-1945" is a good resource/reference for this subject.
Best regardsTheBaron0530 (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edelweiss badge error
Talk:5th Panzer Division (Wehrmacht)

message: This article needs a lot of other work before copy-editing, especially if it is a poorly done or machine translation from the German Wikipedia. I removed the copyedit tag, but follow what the template above says, and replace the copyedit tag after other problems are corrected. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed   so this talk page is not in the category of reviewed articles.--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy editing tag removed
Talk:Education for Death

message: I removed all references to Jews and Judaism in this article, since the short movie makes no mention of them. I don't know why the original article stated  that the Nazi professor and Hitler mentioned Jewish people in a derogatory way - I just watched the movie, and this is completely incorrect! There is NOT a single word about Jews... if anything, it states that Hitler and his regime stood against Democracy, and in a lesser grade, Catholicism - look at the way Jesus Christ in a cross is transformed into a Nazi dagger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.38.162.11 (talk) 02:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is very confusing, considering that Hitler was a Catholic.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.104.158.235 (talk) 01:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits
Talk:Italian Co-belligerent Air Force

message: This one word strikes me as painting the Italian Royalist faction with an aspect of villainy which seems undeserved. Weren't the Axis 'the bad guys'?
Here are some synonyms of 'defection':  falsity ; inconstancy · perfidiousness ; infidelity · fickleness ; deceitfulness · improbity ; bad faith 
Doesn't coming to the realisation that your country's been had and then deciding to do the better thing and leave the Axis, then volunteer to fight alongside the 'good guys' to remove the remaining bad guys from your country make the Royalists not the villains? Or does deciding to join the good guys make them bad guys? I'm sorry, but this one word seems to paint the Italians as somehow more despicable than the Fascists. That's just crazy and doesn't strike me at as a neutral tone suitable for discussion of the Second World War.
Can we sort out a better or at least less controversial/judgmental term here, please? It's really offensive and I am sure it has no need to be. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:24D4:ECBC:2602:AB5D (talk) 10:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defection
Talk:Gross-Rosen concentration camp

message: I believe that the correct spelling of the name of this camp is Groß-Rosen rather than Gross-Rosen. Although German orthography has been "reformed" to eliminate the letter "ß" in most cases, I believe that "ß" is preserved in place names. Can anyone explain why the article should not be renamed to be "Groß-Rosen concentration camp"? Thomas.Hedden (talk) 01:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling of name: Gross-Rosen vs. Gro&szlig;-Rosen

message: It was probably Sudetenland, a part of contemporary Czech Republic.Xx236 (talk) 13:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Czechoslovakia
Talk:Operation Arctic Fox

message: I've re-arranged this to make it read better, and I've added a bit of detail about the action. I was aiming to make the layout correspond to the other pages on this subject. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits

message: The following details have been given without a reference, and the source is suspect: 
Soviet commander=Gen. Maxim Hartsenko 
Axis strength=3 divisions: 45 000 , 83 tanks; casualties=6000 dead, 14 000 wounded, 400 lost, 21 tanks 
Soviet strength=2 divisions: 28 000, 140 tanks; casualties=4000 dead, 7500 wounded, 750 lost, 50 tanks. 
Can anyone verify them? Xyl 54 (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Strength, casualties

message: This unit has been added repeatedly by an anonymous editor, without the requested citation.
Is there any evidence that this unit was involved? Or if it even existed? Xyl 54 (talk) 12:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pz Abt 40

message: I edited this article because the prose was leaden, repetitive, weighted down with redundancies like translations (that can be accessed by clicking on the link to the topic in question, where the translation should properly be, as this is English language wikipedia) and was, as admitted by one of the main contributors, written by someone whose first language is obviously not English. Additionally, I can not fathom why the "background" section is even included in the article, indeed, going back to the Finnish Civil War? What bearing does this have, in any way, on the subject matter of the article? Good advice from an old graduate advisor: it has to a LOT SHORTER or a LOT LONGER ... and we all know what the answer should be. And don't get me stated on the excessive descriptors and adjectives, with everything being "vital" or the Soviets mentioned in every instance, as if it hasn't already been made crystal clear they, and only them, are on the defensive.
Hey, can you tell me what is wrong with making something better and more readable? Give me one good reason? If you check the edits, I puzzled over this article of the better part of 2 hours freely giving my consideration and effort. Oh, and as I hope is clear, I took great pains to not impact adversely on the purpose and educational intent of the article. Honestly, I truly believe I improved it in these respects, making it more enjoyable and easier to read.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.44.231 (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  improvements
Talk:Army Norway (Wehrmacht)

message: because for one thing the article body doesn't use "Army Norway" but rather "Norwegian Army".
But mainly, "Army Norway" is not really idiomatic, not how English speakers describe armies. The Americans don't much go for territorial designations, but when we did, it was "Army of Northern Virginia" not "Army Northern Virginia" etc. For the Brits it's "Army of Palestine" and "Army of the Rhine" not "Army Palestine" and "Army Rhine" etc. OK got that straight. Moving on.
Armeeoberkommando Norwegen means "Army High Command, Norway" or you could say "Army Headquarters, Norway". For our purposes here it's a synecdoche for the German forces in Norway. Fine, it's a synecdoche, but for what? It could be "Army of Norway", "Norwegian Army" (or other things, such as "Ground Forces in Norway", but those two seem the most likely). 
I don't like "Norwegian Army" because it courts confusion with Norwegian Army, the army of the actual Norwegian state. So "Army of Norway" it is.
:This move should be reverted, it's not an army by/from the Norwegians but a german army tasked with operations in/from Norway. AOK Norwegen and Armee Norwegens is the same, they are not different. AOK Norwegen had a command branch in Finland for military operations there that later became AOK Lappland, then 20. Gebirgsarmee. --Denniss (talk) 00:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: I renamed this from "Army Norway" to "Army of Norway"