lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Eparchy

message: Under "Church heirarchy" it it states "Thus in Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, and Eastern-rite Catholicism."  
Note it does not say "Eastern-rite ROMAN Catholicism".
Finally! Catholicism as is known throughout the world (except for a few particular Anglicans and others) is at last refered properly on this site.  I suspect this is probably due to the reality that the error is made even more obvious when refering to "Eastern-rite" Catholicism.  Why because it is simply ridiculous to mention "Eastern-rite ROMAN Catholicism".  That is an absolute falacy.  There is nothing Roman about the Eastern-rite section of the Catholic Church at large (thus the error of including "Roman").  The historical fact that the roots of many Eastern-rite churches are even older that the Latin(Western) rite make this error even more evident.  How can you call Byzantine Catholics, Roman when they existed even before the Latin rite/church, and maintain their Eastern ways separate, but equal to the Western church.  
Thus, why if it seems you understand that Eastern-rite Catholism is one part of the Catholic Church, and the Western-rite (the Latin church or Roman church in slang) the other part...then logic tells you that the two combined should, and can only be called simply the Catholic Church.
Therefore, it is improper for wikipedia to refer to the Catholic Church at large as the "Roman" Catholic Church for it is an invention of those which persecuted Catholics(and other non-Anglicans) in 16th and 17th century Britain.  Refering to such a pejorative term (even though leaders of the Catholic Church have allowed for the term- in the name of dialogue- does not make it right.) is offensive and only gives credence to that same persecuting body which condemned many to flee England as result of this religious persecution.  Wikipedia's material is not done in the name of dialogue, but is informative.  Thus, contributing to stubborn error for the sake of a few (relative to Christianity, in general - even more-so the world's popualtion at large.) Sacrificing historical truth (it is all backed up historically), and ignoring the plea  of the the world's 1.2 million Catholics and the existance of a significant portion of the world's Catholics - Eastern-rite Catholics.  Had this site been a non-English speaking (non-Anglican speaking site) this would be a non-Issue.
Micael 20:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology
Talk:The Torrents of Spring

message: Many years ago I read The Torrents of Spring after reading Torrents of Spring and thinking the Turgenev novel was the worst thing I ever read, and hoping Hemingway would show me what I was missing.  I was soon disabused of both of those notions.  Question: was "The ..." a satire of "Torrents"?  Smallbones (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Question
Talk:Milnsbridge

message: Please note that this page has been incorrectly titled.  The correct spelling should be Milnesbridge. Please do not change it or do a redirect as this has been brought to the notice of an admin who will look into the problem.  Thank You.  Richard Harvey 21:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the issue was resolved a long time ago, the problem arose from the fact that Kirklees council uses both spellings on their website.  For example go to this page:- Parking in Kirklees and click on the arrow in the top drop-down box.  You will see the spelling as Milnesbridge.  If you use the search box to the top right of the page either spelling produces different results.  The correct spelling is as per the article title ie: Milnsbridge. The above message should have been followed up with a note to state the issue was resolved, but clearly this didn't happen. Richard Harvey 15:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:The Princess (Lawrence short story)

message: Why isn't the princess from the Mario series listed in the headnote? TheBlazikenMaster 21:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The character from the Mario series. 

message: Italian WP has a more complete article for this story.  If anyone speaks Italian, would you be so kind as to translate the materials to expand this article?  Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Italian Wikipedia
Talk:Holometabolism

message: In addition to how it works, information on the evolution of it would be extremely useful as it is a very interesting aspect of the phenomenon.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiktaalikbreeder (talk • contribs) 05:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Evolution of

message: This article gives me what Holometabolism is (as would a dictionary), but what about the 'how'?  How does it work?  What, if any, are the known chemical/ biological processes?
If i've missed the page that explains these things I'd be grateful if someone in the know could make the link to it from this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.197 (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I fixed some things and added some.  This page still needs a lot of work including expansion.--FUNKAMATIC   ~talk 22:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion 

message: The article says: "This type of development gives the insects the unique advantage of being able to inhabit different ecological niches because of the morphological differences in the different stages of their life cycle".  I fail to see how this is a "unique advantage". If life in one niche is problematic, can the insect switch to one of the other three niches to increase it chance of survival? I don't think so.
Survival depends on four different environmental niches, in succession. Whichever niche is scarcest determines success or failure of the insect to survive. How is this increasing its chances over an insect which needs just one type of environment? If it does, e.g. because seasonality makes on environment appear just as another disappears, exactly in synch with the insect's life, this needs some explanation.
Referring to this edit. Superp (talk) 13:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This probably does need clarification then.  The advantage is that the adults aren't competing with the young.--FUNKAMATIC   ~talk 08:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: July 2010: advantage or not? 

message: This page doesn't really say much about how it actually works - shouldn't there at least be a reference to the imaginal discs? Perhaps as "see also"?--Cyberman TM (talk) 10:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to [[Imaginal disc]]?
Talk:Nigger Heaven

message: Strombollii (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for improving the article. However references in footnotes should have specific pages cited instead of page ranges. - Darwinek (talk) 11:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this in reference to the journal articles listed, to the VanVechten text, or to both?  I've never listed journal articles under a bibliography, with specific pages referenced in the references section (though I am willing to do this).  The argument is generally that journal articles are short enough that information is easily verifiable.  Strombollii (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It relates only to the journal articles. I agree with your point, however it is much more transparent to cite specific pages, same as with the books. - Darwinek (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotcha: will do.  I asked over at Wikiproject Lit, but haven't gotten an answer yet: is there a Lit Manual of Style? Strombollii (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I found only "Inline citations" section of WP:CITE, otherwise I am not aware if this issue is covered by the manual of style. - Darwinek (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Dropping Refs Here For a Second...

message: Does anyone notice that this book appears to have the word "Nigger" written in the title?
*Second sentence in the article: "The book and its title have been controversial since its publication." Drmies (talk) 03:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help
Talk:Daniel Penfield

message: Lots of good info, but I don't see a single citation.  Shouldn't there be a few?   Secretagentwang (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 16:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing the information comes from the sources listed under "Further Reading", but yes, each statement should ideally be referenced.  There's nothing controversial here, though, so it's not urgent.  Powers T 16:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: The following attributes would be a great addition to the article. First, the WikiProject Biography with the following attributes: |military-work-group=yes|military-priority=low – The WikiProject Military history banner can be added with the attributes: {{WikiProject Military history |Biography=yes |US=yes |Early-Modern=yes |ARW=yes Even the additional of {{WikiProject United States |ARW=yes |USMIL=yes – Once this is done, it'll be improved with a better search of attribute; Even a WikiProjectBannerShell. Adamdaley (talk) 03:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional WikiProjects
Talk:Wire fu

message: I think The Big Boss is NOT a representative example of wire fu movie.  Even if the movie did really use wire work, it was not obvious to the audience nor it left an impression.  Plenty of other movies are unmistakenly wire fu. I'd suggest to remove it from the list.  Kowloonese 21:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Big Boss 

message: I think arguably the most popular wire scene from the matrix is not the one mentioned here, but rather the one that appears at the start of the film in which Trinity 'floats' up into the air and then kicks the policeman across the room. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.42.159.129 (talk) 00:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Matrix 

message: This article is terribly Western Cinema-centric, for an art that is mainly eastern in origin. 
71.169.33.30 19:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Western-centric
Talk:The Blue Castle

message: It is proper that the first edition cover be in the infobox. But since we have sources commentary on the dust jacket image present in the second and some other editions, would it not be desirable to include that as well? Then the reader can see whatn the change involved. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cover images
Talk:Blow torch

message: No offense to the author, but this page is absolute rubbish.  There are POV statements and sections written in the first tense.  I'm also noy completely sure about the accuracy of some of the stuff here.  I'm gonna see if I can clean this up a little.
BigSciZot 21:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

message: I suggest Blowtorch be redirected to Blow torch and a new Blowtorch (disambiguation) page be created. Biscuittin 22:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes 
Talk:Looney Tunes Golden Collection: Volume 4

message: Posted November 14, 2006
By JS
Finally, it's here! Today is the day that the fourth volume of the Digital Videodisc series Looney Tunes Golden Collection is out! Get those wallets out, cartoon fans! It costs between $60-$50! (Wha...?) Also, be prepared for some politically incorrect or rare shorts in the collection. (Have the "Walt Disney Treasures" and "Tom and Jerry Spotlight Collection" been released, yet? I don't know!) Get your DVD set today.
:If you're wondering, by the way, how I actually made out---I wasn't actually able to find the original Looney Tunes Golden Collection: Volume 4. Thus, I was forced, for the first time, to buy the Looney Tunes Spotlight Collection version. While I enjoyed the restored shorts, there were only about 30 of them, instead of the 60 on the Golden Collection. Also, there was really only one bonus feature: a 10-minute travelogue parody showing clips that were mainly from cartoons that had already been restored and released in previous compilations! Hopefully, I'll have better luck finding the Looney Tunes Golden Collection: Volume 5. --- JS, 164.58.96.126 18:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

message: One article for an ongoing annual series of box set collections is simply not enough.  The articles for the individual volumes must be kept intact. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has been saved. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Define "adequately covered" 

message: This page used to claim that the only "complete" Region 2 version of this box set was released in France. However, according to http://www.dohtem.com/bugs/foreign/france/, only Volumes 1 and 2 were released in France, as individual discs much like other European territories. This puts the "citation needed" disclaimer (added in July 2017) to rest. TapLover (talk) 09:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  French release
Talk:Joseph Spencer

message: Article reassessed and graded as stub. --dashiellx (talk) 11:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 
Talk:The Masqueraders

message: I found the plot summary rather hard to understand - possibly that's inevitable because of the way the characters "masquerade".  But could someone try to make it a bit easier to grasp?  Helen-Eva (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot summary 

message: How much of the plot, we must ask, is inspired by the crossdressing siblings Sebastian and Viola in Twelfth Night? 91.176.90.243 Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot inspiration
Talk:Arthropod mouthparts

message: I'm proposing a rewrite of this article to add generic detail.  Intended article is at User:Heds/Sandbox.  I have omitted the bee text and lep image, as I think insect mouthparts deserve a dedicated article covering all the specific adaptions to the basic mouthpart plan. It probably remains Start Class without references, but I'm keen to see if there is support for the direction of the change.  Heds 10:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite proposal

message: Support — I am not the proponent, but I fully agree that mouth (bee anatomy) should be merged into mouthparts. --Stemonitis 09:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal

message: Aren't several of the parts currently listed under the Insects section actually common to all arthropods? Such as maxillae, labrum, and labium? Perhaps these should be moved out of the Insects section as it gives the impression that only insects have these mouthparts. Kaldari (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mouthparts common to all arthropods 

message: Mouthparts vs. mouth parts. It seems to me that it should be "Mouth parts". --Polinizador (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mouthparts vs. mouth parts
Talk:Mario and the Magician

message: The political reading of 'Mario and the Magician' is massively overstated in the article, especially seeing as it is widely discredited nowadays. I believe the article should be edited to at least offer the counterargument and possibly offer overall judgement thereof.
--SaraFL (talk) 11:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politial reading of the text
Talk:Cancer pagurus

message: I live in the Pacific Northwest, in Oregon.  When I've gone crabbing, I've caught a crab that looks identical to the Edible crab (along with the indigenous Dungeness).  We call it a Rock Crab.  Can anyone confirm if the Edible Crab is the Rock Crab in Oregon?
Thanks  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JessStuart (talk • contribs) 16:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While it's possible that crabs can travel long distances with ships, its probably another species. It might be Yellow Rock Crab (Cancer anthonyi), Red Rock Crab (Cancer productus), or  California Rock Crab (Cancer antennarius). Tey all seem quite similar to the european Edible Crab.  -- Henriok (talk) 11:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pacific Rock Crab and Edible Crab 
Talk:Temple of Bacchus

message: The final picture on this page is the temple of jupiter, not that of Bacchus.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.104.26 (talk) 11:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: http://www.ufo-contact.com/baalbek
It REALLY MEANS NOTHING CONCERNING THE SITE'S MOTIVATION, BUT THE PHOTOGRAPHS ARE WONDERFUL!  And, I am disapponted that there is so little exhibited at this WIKI site!!
As a small little Jedi Knight might have said;"Disapointed, am I!"  96.19.147.40 (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Added this link instead for you little Jedi. Also changed the lead image to a better one. --ELEKHHT 22:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  I would suggest that this site;  http://www.ufo-contact.com/baalbek  Be added to the sources.
Talk:Cakes and Ale

message: In the introduction to the edition I have read, W. Somerset Maugham
states convincingly that this book is NOT a satire of Thomas Hardy.
What the general opinion of this is, I don't know. 84.64.168.110 21:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Too bad about the plot summary. After third grade we would have had a plot summary returned to us. --Wetman 03:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What plot summary? What are you talking about? W. Somerset Maugham, the author in his introduction (do you know the difference between an introduction and a plot summary?) to this book explicitly states that it has nothing to do with Thomas Hardy - so either it does not have anything to do with Thomas Hardy, or he is lying. Since the introduction came out many years after the controversy regarding the link to Hardy had become irrelevant, I'm not sure of his motivation for lying. Anyway, it is certainly worth mentioning the author's own opinion on the matter in this article, rather than some anonymous unreferenced and probably incorrect opinion. 91.105.199.66 16:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: You're right, I would not consider this a satire of Thomas Hardy--however, it could rightfully be called a satire of Hugh Walpole, who comes across as the busy-body literary figure in search of a reputation in this novel. I find plot summaries helpful, notwithstanding my long progression past third grade. Jmhuculak 16:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maugham eventually admitted that Kear was based partly on Walpole  -  after years of denying it. 86.183.121.248 (talk) 01:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

text: In the novel, Driffield married his secretary, and so did Thomas Hardy (and both were the second marriages). But that's about all the similarity between the fictitious person (Driffield) and the real person (Hardy) that I can see. The general consent here seems to be that the sentence "The novel contains thinly veiled and unflattering characterizations of the authors Thomas Hardy (...) and Hugh Walpole (...)" is unfounded regarding Hardy. Also, the statement is not referenced. I will now edit the article accordingly. --Herbmuell (talk) 09:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Satire of Thomas Hardy?
Talk:Black No More

message: Was this the inspiration for “The Sneeches”? 207.177.225.141 (talk) 23:38, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Dr. Seuss

message: — Assignment last updated by Rivera.joel3 (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: African American Literature I
Talk:Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs

message: I was wondering if anyone can format this page so it's similar to other wikipedia entries.  I will be periodically adding info but I want it to look presentable.  I am new to this!  Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shmifi (talk • contribs) 
:Please sign your posts using  ~~~~ Travb (talk) 05:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Format page

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/about/info/history.html. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  --Misarxist 11:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Talk:Barndoor skate

message: In mid-2006, NOAA published a press release in which it stated that it was no longer considering the barndoor skate an "overfished species".  I have been unable to locate any information relating to reactions from conservationists and scientists familiar with the species.   If anybody can find such reactions, it would be a great addition to the paragraph in the "conservation" section relating to this.  Neil916 (Talk) 00:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2006 NOAA Press release

message: I've passed this article for GA. Good work. Only thing I'd suggest is finding a photo of the skate or something. Other then that well written, well referenced, neutral and balanced. - Shudda talk 00:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA nomination

message: :This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Barndoor skate/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
===GA Sweeps: Pass===
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be beneficial to update the access dates for the sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Reassessment

message: As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be beneficial to update the access dates for the sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps: Pass
Talk:Maigret at the Crossroads

message: This novel has been adapted for TV at least twice (French version with Bruno Cremer, British version with Rowan Atkinson).  Those adaptations should be mentioned in the article (and compared, as they are very different), if not given their own articles.  J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 23:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  TV adaptations