lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Sambo

message: Yes, Sambo was the original name, but it is important (or useful?) to remember that the original Sambo was Indian.  The Babaji is, I think, a fairly recent edition.  Bannerman's Sambo and the American Sambo were independent. --MichaelTinkler.
In the original Bannerman book, the setting was clearly India, but the illustrations of the boy were pretty clearly African, not Indian.  It is quite likely that the Scottish author simply didn't know the difference or didn't care.  American readers clearly assumed that the boy was African (they too were probably ignorant of the distinction), and the book published here was Bannerman's original with the same illustrations.  "Babaji" is indeed very recent.  --LDC
----
The original illustrations were done by the author, who had
lived in India for ten years prior to creating her book. It
is hardly likely that her pictures depicted Africans rather
than Indians. - HWR
Maybe someone who knows clothing styles can settle the issue...are the later Sambo illustrations (1960s or 1970s) drawings of an Indian or an African boy? - firepink
----
Well, the Bannerman illustrations are just bad -- not racially, but clearly the work of someone not used to portraying non-whites.  I honestly think they look like lower-caste Indians, but they are vague enough to be misinterpreted as African.  The text is clear that this took place in India, though, and identifies the melted butter as ghi or ghee -- something indeed Indian.
The version I had when I was a kid (possibly a little golden book) clearly showed them as Indian -- Black Jumbo (and yes, I do cringe at the names!)wore a turban, IIRC, and Black Mumbo something pink and flowing, although I am not sure if it was a sari or something of the trouser variety.  Their skin was a golden brown.  
I think the seriously stereotypical version was one that came out in the 1940s -- Sambo is a nappy headed (not in the British sense, but in the Stevie Wonder sense) little African child.  
Strangely, the parts about the story that stuck with me were the picture of the butter around the base of the tree the one of the very handsome tiger wearing the shoes with crimson soles and crimson linings on his ears... JHK
-----
I deleted the note that Bannerman's story is banned because it needs more details.  Who banned it where? Tuf-Kat
Sambo also used as in Irish slang, short for "sandwich", the racial slur is something you might need to warn Irish people about. 
http://www.google.ie/search?q=sambo&btnG=Google+Search&meta=cr%3DcountryIE
-- 86.47.161.201 (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: beans --Jerzy•t 01:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  A talk contrib at this position has been deleted. 
Talk:Spider-Man

message: I am unable to correct them because the page is locked, but there are a number of grammatical mistakes and poorly written sentences in the section on Spider-man's powers. 2600:1700:8150:5C20:FDE8:3D80:7BB2:3BD8 (talk) 01:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistakes  

message: When you click on the graph image source and log in to The Licensing Letter it redirect to the last Licensing Letter list from 2018 and not the one from 2016. Should we remove the image? I'm not sure if the Licensing Letter list from 2016 is behind a paywall now. Timur9008 (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  what do you think? Timur9008 (talk) 11:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably a good idea. The 2016 letter doesn't seem to be accessible, and in any case, the information in the graph is probably out-of-date. Betty Logan (talk) 10:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Timur9008 (talk) 10:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graph image in Cultural impact and legacy section 

message: Batman & Spider-Man: New Age Dawning should be deleted from this section (as it no longer has a page) just as Spider-Man and Batman: Disordered Minds was deleted from it long ago.2600:1700:B570:3BD0:797D:F456:EE7D:E8B2 (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of a comic from Spider-Man publications 

message: Hey, I've added the most recent spidey redirect template, but I see the page is already marked with two. I'm unfamiliar with the multi redirect template and frankly, I would rather someone who is maintaining this page more closely adjust the hatnotes themselves. Just pinging here in case someone wanted to review the most recent redirect hatnote for Spidey (disambiguation). Thanks, microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 17:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spidey (disambiguation) hatnote 

message: After reading the discussion. My opinion. Is Spiderman a speedster like the Flash? No. But is he faster than any other human? Yes. Marvel’s official website even says he has that ability: https://www.marvel.com/characters/spider-man-peter-parker/in-comics I’m gonna go by that people. Ziggy Coltrane (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You can go by what you like personally, but not on Wikipedia. You should not edit war about this. MrOllie (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I’m going by the facts, if Marvel’s official website says he is, then he is. There is no better source than the creators themselves.Ziggy Coltrane (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not how Wikipedia works. See WP:RS, WP:CON, etc. Even setting that aside, the 'equilibrium' you have been adding isn't supported even in that flimsy source. MrOllie (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speed
Talk:Sequence

message: Sentence sequencing of grammar and education of students like us. 124.106.137.110 (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a sequence of complete sentences as teachers have to for linguistics? 

message: Nonono! Not just for math please!!! 124.106.137.149 (talk) 09:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a dictionary entry.  contains such a definition. D.Lazard (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: See also sequence (disambiguation), which is linked in a prominent place at the article top. You might wish to check that disambiguation whether it mentions your linguistic meaning of "sequence". - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 10:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is sequence meant for linguistics to help with complete sentences. 

message: The article Interleave sequence is currently a stub, and I cannot imagine how it could ever evolve to not be a stub. Thus, making it a subsection of this article seems like the right thing to do. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 05:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No. This article is the wrong merge target for that one. It is too specific and this one too general. The material to be merged would not fit in well here. Also, your failure of imagination is not a valid merge reason. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

text: This seems unnecessary. Short articles are fine as long as the scope is well defined. (But this could certainly be expanded to significant length if anyone cared enough to do the research). –jacobolus (t) 01:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Interleave sequence]]
Talk:Sexual intercourse

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
----
:Sexual intercourse →  – The common article is Copulation (zoology) which should be renamed as sexual intercourse (in common) or sexual intercourse in animals. 202.134.11.235 (talk) 10:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 6 April 2024 
Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 2

message: I'd like to put something in the article about how 911 is the emergency services phone number in the USA, since this is a reason people refer to the attacks as 9/11 instead of September 11, but I can't think of a graceful way to do it.
:Whatever you do along these lines, i urge you be sure to acknowledge that their oral versions provide more distinction than the silent slash would suggest. I think that before 9/11 occurred, pronouncing "911" as "nine one one" was nearly universal while pronouncing "9/11" that way was a bizarre affectation if it occurred.  Even tho the coincidence is undeniably striking, many of us don't pronounce (let along write) them the same, and may even comment when others blur the distinction. Jerzy 08:00, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: It's there.  Look at the second paragraph of Overview. -- VV 05:58, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

text: Separate it into two sentences. The first clause is only remotely connected to the rest of it. --Jiang 02:49, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  911 name 

message: I made a new section. It describes about how the attack was being planned and the movements of the hijacker pilots, the "brawny men", and the financiers back in Europe and the UAE. WhisperToMe 09:03, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: New section

message: image:2wtccrash.JPGUnited Airlines Flight 175, moments before crashing into The South tower of the World Trade Center
Do we have permission to use this photo? There isn't even any attribution so we could not even begin to pretend it is 'fair use'. --mav 05:47, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  2wtccrash.JPG
Talk:Singular they

message: Citing a 2003 edition (at least two editions behind) is not reasonable. This needs to be replaced by citation to the current edition (2022), the wording in which has very likely changed on this, since it is evidence-based.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SOFIXIT. DuncanHill (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

text: I've updated to the 2016 edition, which (still) verifies the claim. I'll check the 2022 edition if I can find it. Woodroar (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Garner's Modern English Usage'' 

message: This article is massively violating MOS:DLIST by abusing the  element (wikimarkup :) as a visual indentation mechanism, producing all kinds of bogus list markup in the rendered result, which is a major accessibility problem. That markup is only for use inside description lists AKA definition lists AKA association lists (despite the fact that we regularly abuse the shit out of it on talk pages for visual indentation; our articles have accessibility guidelines to comply with that our talk pages do not.
Doing this:
is wrong.  This is even worse, since it creates two different kind of broken lists at once:
All of the examples that are actual quotations should probably be done with 
Examples that are not quotations should be formatted with .
For cases where there are groups of introductory statements followed by one or more illustrative examples, presently mis-coded as stuff like:
the proper markup is:
since that is a valid DLIST.
If one or another of those example entries in such a list needs to be a block quotation itself, use , a version of  designed to work inside DLIST markup.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed the lion's share. — Remsense聊 20:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[MOS:DLIST]] 

message: Normally I would object to using plurals where singular is appropriate but then I thought of the following.  What is plural?  It appears that in English we don't add s for just more than 1, we also add s for less than 1.  For example I have 1 orange.  I have 1.1 oranges. I have 0.9 oranges.  Note we don't say I have 0.9 orange.  We use a plural construct for some reason.  Now  we can argue than if a bit of skin drops off you, you are no longer 1 Fred, but potentially 0.99999999999 Freds... if you can use 0.9 oranges because the complete orange is not present, why cant you use Freds when not  complete Fred is present?  If you can now use such plurals and of course as humans we are never the full human we were a moment ago given skin sheds all day long as dust, it should be justifiable to refer to part of a Fred as they.  Its not singular, it is less than 1. 120.21.231.181 (talk) 16:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singular vs Plural
Talk:Seek time

message: Article currently reads:
:Solid state media can have seek times of under 0.1 ms because there are no moving parts to align.
Surely solid state media have zero seek time? JulesH 10:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. There may be a negligible delay for implementation reasons, but I doubt it's measurable compared to the throughput. -- intgr [talk] 17:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's around 0.1 ms, but I'd guess it would be access time rather than seek time. -- Ddxc (talk) 11:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solid state media? 

message: I think the distinction between seek time and access time isn't made clear enough in this article.  (The access time article could use some improvement as well, by the way.)  See also (somewhat unreliable, but perhaps still useful),  and . (I'm not enough of an expert on this to improve it myself, unfortunately.) -- Ddxc (talk) 11:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seek time vs. access time 

message: 71.156.42.169 (talk) 00:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  no defenition 

message: I see no reason to merge the Seek time article into the Rotational delay article or vice versa.  One is not part of the other; rather they are two of the three components of Access time.  Jim.henderson (talk) 12:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: I'm under the impression that seek times have not decreased significantly during the last two decades and that they have increasingly become a bottle neck in modern computers. A graph will illustrate that nicely. -- Nic Roets (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Please add a graph !
Talk:Slashdot effect

message: Why is this article in Category:Words_coined_in_the_1970s? The Slashdot Effect was obviously coined during the 1990s.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.29.251.163 (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: "The term "flash crowd" was coined in 1973 by Larry Niven" - David Gerard (talk) 13:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's fine for the "flash crowd" term but the title of this article is "Slashdot effect". It definitely didn't exist in the 70's, the fact that some other term predates it doesn't change that. --Hooperbloob (talk) 03:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  1970s?
Talk:Sandman (disambiguation)

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
*Support this puts it back to the way it was before January 12, 2006 ProveIt 00:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages
*Support per MoS:DP —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting

message: I reworked the page fairly extensively to make it comply with the guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages).  Some of the entries are still probably a bit too long; Howard Simms should probably have his own page, and the Steve Abbott info should be mostly on his.  I don't know whether the "member of The Dugout" and the rapper are notable enough for mention here or not — if the rapper is, he should probably have his own page at Sandman (rapper) or Sandman (musician), with a one-line entry here. I strongly suspect that the "member of The Dugout" is non-notable and should be removed.  My general understanding is that disambiguation pages are supposed to give just enough info to enable the reader to find the relevant article, not act as merge pages for articles that wouldn't survive an AfD on their own. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style issues 

message: Is it just me or is the distinction between concept and fictional character at best vague? Would this be better served by eliminating the first to combine with the second? --72.200.80.15 05:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Layout

message: Just out of curiosity, what's the difference between "fictional" and "print"? Why make that distinction? 86.2.7.49 (talk) 08:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Fictional" section is a subheader of "People", so is meant to designate characters named "Sandman", vs the "Print" section which is meant to list publications titled "Sandman". It's a little bit ambiguous because some of the characters-named-Sandman appear within publications-titled-Sandman, but nothing is perfect, so that's what we have here currently. I think. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Distinguishing categories

message: Why are some people named Sandman listed here in the People section, while others are listed in the separate "Sandman Surname' page. It doesn't make sense to me. Shouldn't they all be together? I was also thinking of listing Nicholas (Nick) Sandmann since searching for the surname "sandmann" directs me to this page. Nicholas Sandmann was the principal student involved in the January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation. Since Nicholas does not have his own page and a search for him gets redirected to the "incident' page, I am not sure if listing here is proper. If it is proper, I wouldn't know if he should be listed here or in the 'Sandman surname' page. Can someone help me out with these two entangled issues?MicroManagingAH (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  People named Sandman
Talk:Silesia

message: A discussion is taking place as to whether :Portal:Silesia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Silesia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 06:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination of [[:Portal:Silesia]] for deletion 
Talk:Sydney Harbour Bridge

message: The information about the tyne bridge is wrong. It's an urban myth - unless time travelling bridge builders stole the design. Sydney was started 2 years before the tyne bridge.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:E802:FC00:9D3F:7695:FA56:573A (talk) 13:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tyne bridge caim
Talk:Strategos

message: If you think it's overwhelming the article, let me know, and I'll remove it.  I put it here because strategos is the only rank that had an existing article! --Jpbrenna 08:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek officer template 

message: I don't recall (and can't find any reference to) the Jewish ethnicity of the Polemarch or Strategos in the novel Ender's Game -- this section should probably be removed from the article if it's erroneous.
I don't think that it is stated in Ender's Game but is stated in one (or more) of the books in the Ender's Shadow saga. - Bornyesterday 14:51, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
:It is mentioned in "Ender's Game", chapter eight.  Page 99 of the copy I have here in front of me.  In the passage where Rose da Nose is introduced you get this 
"Since the I.F. was formed the strategos of the military forces had always been a Jew. There was a myth that Jewish generals didn't lose wars. And so far it was true. It made any Jew in the battleschool dream of being strategos, and conferred prestige on him from the start. It also caused resentment."
 (any typos mine.)  It goes on in this vein for another couple paragraphs, but that's the relevant portion. APL 03:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it is mentioned in Ender's Game, but in that passage the implication is not that only Jews can occupy those offices, but that during the first war they did--making a point about Jews being expected to be brilliant militarily.  I've changed the passage to qualify that sentence to that effect. sumtimreh 05:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ender's Game reference? 

message: Since archontes currently goes to a page on a Russian metal band, perhaps a move of said page is in order...?  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  12:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: We will rock you
Talk:Shepherd Neame Brewery

message: I'm going to edit this page fairly rigorously as it doesn't come anywhere near a NeutralPointofView. But please don't take this as negative criticism. I as much as you am a fan of real ale: please keep writing about it! sjc PS: most of the second para probably belongs in an article on real ale.sjc
:the link to Old Thumper says it's brewed by Ringwood Brewery, not Shepherd Neame, is this an error or is Ringwood a subsidary of S&M, in which case this should be clarified quercus robur 23:11 Mar 30, 2003 (UTC)
::Old Thumper is indeed a Ringwood beer, and as far as I know there's no relation between them and Shepherd Neame (S.Neame is Kentish, Ringwood is Hampshire or somewhere that way on). I'll take it out. --Camembert
Just storing a link in here to the annual production: 
200,000 barrels claim Ojw 12:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto the IPA, which seems to have slowly disappeared since the millenium but was my personal favourite.  Whilst I'm here, I'd make the comment that the whole article still feels a bit WP:ADVERTy in tone, even if there's not many specific problems. It could just do with a major copyedit. 81.109.188.161 (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Also missing are Canterbury Jack, Faversham Hop Festival Ale, Kents Best, and 1698. All of which are sometimes available on draught TacoJim (talk) 12:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

message: The whole history section needs to be referenced. Where does this info come from?Zigzig20s (talk) 10:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: The article says: "Bishop's Finger ... takes its name from the Kentish nickname for an ancient signpost on the Pilgrims Way pointing to Canterbury and the shrine of Thomas A Becket", which is uncited.  I was under the impression that a "Bishop's Finger" was an historic term for any of the old finger board type signs: they show the right way to go, but don't go themselves – a slander on morality of bishops generally!  Can anyone provide a citation either way? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bishop's Finger
Talk:Stem cell

message: This page was very well written and informative. The headlines made it easier to navigate and understand the material. I also thought the amount of research was adequate. There use of many sources indicates the information is well understood. The linked words were also helpful in understanding the material with more background. 
Fieldsm2019 (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review  

message: Obviously this info should be here; it is main genetical (more like epigenetical, it is not about DNA code as such but about DNA demethylation of C & G which activates this riboprotein) difference between stem cell and other cells. Obviously, this is not enough, I will also add info about gametes being telomerase activated in Telomerase article and we should rework Stem cell article with cites, etc.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZBalling (talk • contribs) 18:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  I add telomerase info in preamble
Talk:Slime mold

message: The redirect Slime mould diseases has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Slime mould diseases]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]