lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Laurent-Désiré Kabila

message: I've tried to remove the rampant POV attacking Kabila's government. Ideally some specifics for the criticism should be provided. Even so, it seems extremely biased to suggest that Kabila could have constructed a corruption-free liberal democracy in the months before Rwanda attacked. It is a fact he didn't do so, but no objective account should frame the discussion in this way.--Jack Upland 02:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: I did a quick search and found a few stories. There are many more:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9502EEDF113FF932A35754C0A96E958260
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE0DD1531F934A35756C0A96E958260
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE1D6173CF935A25757C0A96E958260
http://members.tripod.com/refugeenews/oct697congo.htm
http://www.wagingpeace.info/?q=node/65
128.135.121.202 (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  More research on allegations of massacres of Hutu refugees needed 

message: " President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo "
Isn't there a little difference between a self-proclaimed president and an elected president?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.2.83.146 (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  president? 

message: I tried to fix the punctuation errors under the 'Assassination' headline/topic but it saved it rather wierd looking; it put the corrected sentence in italics and didn't fix the punctuation problem. Can someone help me fix this? Thanks. Labtek00 (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Punctuation of the section Assassination 

message: *  -Indy beetle (talk) 03:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential sources 
Talk:P-vector

message: Need more work on bivectors here; if there is a lot more to write about on p-vectors, then maybe the bivector stuff should be shifted to a new article.---Mpatel 08:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bivectors

message: Shouldn't the name of the lemma be "multivecotor" instead of "p-vector"? --Trigamma 15:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having a closer look at the article, it should rather be "bivecors", for the article doesn't say anything non-trivial about p-vecors with p \ne 2.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trigamma (talk • contribs) 15:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lemma 

message: Honestly, the entire entry for P-Vector makes no sense to anyone that is not a specialist in tensorial math.  And if someone is a specialist in tensor math, why would they be reading this section.  This section needs a rewrite into a form that actually conveys a description without a complete reliance on other abstract concepts.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.92.155 (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Content Too Obtuse 

message: The restriction of the term p-vector to refer only to differential geometry seems too narrow. It also has meaning in linear algebra. For example, a bivector also is called sometimes a 2-vector, and is not restricted to differential geometry. Perhaps the use of p-vector as an adjective to describe a field, as in bivector field, is more appropriately restricted to differential geometry? Should the name of this article be changed to p-vector field? Brews ohare (talk) 16:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro too narrow; maybe a name change is appropriate?
Talk:Enemies (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)

message: * For the first time, the name "Angelus" is used to refer specifically to the soulless, evil Angel.
Not quite certain.  In "Innocence" Jenny says, "if it's happened, then Angelus is back."  On the other hand, three episodes later Spike says, "I find myself preferring the old Buffy-whipped Angelus." —Tamfang (talk) 00:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  that Latin form
Talk:Master of Wine

message: I this (or comparable with) an official academic Master degree, like all other academic degrees (MBA, MSc, etc.)?
:No, it is not issued by an accredited academic institution, but in terms of the work required I have read that it takes roughly a year of full-time study and writing to prepare, and even then passing is by no means guaranteed. Wnissen 13:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not appear to be like a Master's degree, because it's not issued by an educational institution and does not indicate the completion of a specific educational program from the issuing institution or the writing of a thesis. That doesn't mean it is easy to accomplish. It seems to be more of a professional certification, indicating that certain tests have been passed. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking back, some of what I wrote above appears to be incorrect. The article describes a three-stage programme that includes written exams and the writing of a research paper (roughly equivalent to a thesis). It does not describe taking specific classes of coursework, and the programme sounds roughly to be an apprenticeship. The description is not sourced, but I have no reason to believe it is incorrect. I still think this is more of a professional certification than a degree e.g., because it is not issued by a university (as said by Wnissen, by an "accredited educational institution"). That is not to say that it is a lesser qualification than an academic Master's degree it is probably more difficult to obtain than many Master's degrees, but just that it is different from a Masters degree.  —BarrelProof (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Is it an academic degree?
Template talk:Current/archive1

message: Shouldn't that be :Category:Current events, in line with most categories having names in the plural? -- Paddu 14:52, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. I think I'll fix it now. JOHN COLLISON (An Liúdramán) 11:17, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category name 

message: I've often seen people remove this template from articles about people or places on the grounds that they are not "events" and cannot be said to be "ongoing". I've changed the wording slightly so as to make it possible to use this template on such pages without it looking strange. — Trilobite (Talk) 21:33, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wording

message: I've started to remove this template from articles that do not require them. Since tags clutter the top of the page and are more useful to editors than readers, they should only be used when necessary. As explained above, this tag is appropriate for "current event articles that will likely experience numerous edits in a short period of time". Examples of articles where this template should be used (as of 7 Apr 2005): Pope John Paul II, Papal conclave, 2005 and UK general election, 2005. Carbonite | Talk 03:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of unnecessary tags

message: Shouldn't  be merged somehow with this one? I think they're redundant. — mark ✎ 22:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (That was a crosspost from Template talk:Flux, everyone please join the discussion there...) — mark ✎ 22:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:flux
Talk:Law Society of England and Wales

message: please can someone edit this article to remove opinions
GW85.189.97.52 (talk) 08:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: where's the neutral point of view gone?
Talk:Midland Red

message: Added a clean up tag as most of article is a giant list and bus route info which may be more suited to UK Transport wiki or similar projects. No references, and lack of info like were company is actually originally from, so history could perhaps be expanded to balance article out - BulldozerD11 (talk) 03:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: When these buses operated by Trent were a regular sight where I live, I was told SOS stood for "Shires Own Specification" 10:15, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: SOS
Talk:The Thorn Birds

message: "second highest rating mini-series" and "number 1 bestseller"---in which country? --84.176.13.231 09:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

message: Can something be done about the cursory plot outlining and actually get into some of the details/themes of the story? Ridiculous and hilarious as the Thorn Birds may be, it deserves more than simple "and then, and then" statements.
:Thank you for your suggestion!  When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in!  (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold.  Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly.  If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. -- —Moondyne 01:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Substandard article 

message: Regarding the Thorn Bird theme, I know it had previously appeared in an Oscar Wilde story named "The Nightingale and the Rose" (Inside a story collection named "The Happy Prince and Other Tales").
I wonder if this was actually the source of TTB's reference, or if they both draw from the same source. Does anybody know?
WhoMI (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thorn Bird Theme 

message: The Wikipedia format for articles on novels & films is missing what the people really want/need.  We need a synopsis that summarizes the story, and we rarely get that.  Instead we get a long plot detail that cannot substitute for the summary.  Writers are perfectly able to compose a summary right out of the detailed plot.  But it's not possible for the format to change that allows them to do so, to meet people's needs, eh? Rtdrury (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia article format change needed
Talk:President Kennedy School

message: it was hushed up apparently.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.233.12 (talk) 15:02, August 30, 2007 (UTC) 
Also, it would be useful to have photos of the school buildings (without recognizable people). Snowman (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  drugs found in school toilets in 2006
Talk:July 2005 London bombings

message: UK envoy: Nowhere is safe from global terror by David Horovitz, published in the Jerusalem Post, July 28, 2005 22:14, Updated Jul. 29, 2005
:If it were up to him, says Britain's ambassador to Israel, Simon McDonald, the BBC would call terrorists terrorists, rather than use terms such as militants, extremists and bombers to describe those who deliberately kill innocents for political purposes.
Klonimus 00:13, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:   Not sure where to put this. (Report on Interview with British Envoy to Israel) 

message: should the killing of an innocent man by mistake by police as part of the investigation be mentioned here? Plugwash 23:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: the shooting by policemen

message: This article seems to part-duplicate the more comprehensive 7 July 2005 London bombings and 21 July 2005 London bombings. Perhaps any material here not in the other articles should be copied to the other articles, then this article deleted or redirected? comment by Pol098 at 21:46, 4 March 2006
::This article is of significantly less quality as to the 7 July 2005 London bombings. Suggest moving any information in this article to 7 July 2005 London bombings if it isn't their already FK0071a 12:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate, needs dealing with 

message: As this article almost entirely duplicates the two articles dealing in detail with the two attacks, and this invites repetition and has no advantage (I spent a fair time writing stuff here which I later found in the individual articles), I have deleted all details on the individual attacks (i.e., most of the text), and left only a little stuff common to both.
It may be worth mining the revision prior to my gutting to see if there are any nuggets for the main articles.
Pol098 21:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. This article is of significantly less quality as to the 7 July 2005 London bombings. Suggest moving any information in this article to 7 July 2005 London bombings if it isn't their already FK0071a 12:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article gutted
Talk:City Of

message: Although I didn't add it originally, I confess to deleting the Josh Holloway trivia bullet about a week ago.
I also deleted, just now, the two Russell Winters images, because the links appeared to be dead. I'm pasting them here:
180px|thumb|left|Russell Winters, benefactor180px|thumb|right|Russell Winters, predator
--just in case they ractivate, and anyone wants to reinsert them.
--Magicmote 01:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion alert 
Talk:Terminology of the British Isles

message: Diagram shows England, Scotland and Wales as being entirely contained within the Geographical Feature of Great Britain.  But, aren't there English (e.g. Isle of Wight), Welsh (e.g. Anglesey) and Scottish (e.g. Skype) islands that are in the United Kingdom (and, moreover, with one of the 3 countries) but not actually in Great Britain? 150.143.239.255 (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: "Great Britain" is listed under both "geographical terms" ("the largest island of the archipelago") and "political terms" ("the countries of England, Wales and Scotland, considered as a unit"). The two usages are (helpfully) not identical, and it is the political usage which seems to have been used in the diagram (which does at least make clear that it is merely an "overview" and so not comprehensive). It is, of course, that political usage which features in the full name of the United Kingdom: it is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Northern Ireland and Various Small Islands. I'd argue that it's actually the more common of the usages, in fact, just as "Ireland" would normally be taken to include the islands surrounding it rather than being limited to the mainland. Proteus (Talk) 17:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Euler Diagram
Talk:Muktar Said Ibrahim

message: The two BBC reports linked to refer to entry dates of 1992 and 1990.  The later published date (1990) does not explicitly refer to Muktar Said Ibrahim but to his family.  I have not amended the article, which still lists the entry date as 1992.
:Entry to Britain was 1990 - 1992 was when he was granted residency. Rd232 23:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancy: Date of entry into UK 

message: This article includes the tags of "Eritrean Muslims" and "Eritrean Immigrants to the United Kingdom", but the body of the article describes him as being originally from Somalia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariamabe (talk • contribs) 18:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancy on origins
Talk:Zoé Oldenbourg

message: A quick start on this - there's surprisingly little on her in English. Corrected the name accent-wise as well. Other pages on the wiki have yet to be redirected as some have variants on her name. I left out the B. from her name, because it seems like it wasn't the form she usually used --agapow 11:10, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
:I have deleted the B., because I can find no references that support it. Languagehat (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:
Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/DotSix

message: I am including the following information from the RFC page in case it is better form to have this information on the discussion page. 11:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copy of allegation on project page

message: I deleted the following because I see no evidence that it is DotSix's work. Whoever blanked the page is a jerk, but there are a lot of those on Wikipedia. I don't believe either of the IPs has ever been associated with DotSix in the past.
:Other addresses:
**
**
:#Blanking article on vandalism (from two addresses, one a previous Dot-Six address)  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVandalism&diff=20254179&oldid=20157266  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVandalism&diff=20157203&oldid=20154687
The first address, 67.182.26.29, has been associated with DotSix.  If you will check the talk page for the IP address, you will see that I posted a statement on it.  However, we do not know that it is DotSix.  Maybe DotSix should create a user account rather than using pages that are also used by stupid vandals.  Robert McClenon 01:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleting Allegation of Blanking Vandalism Page

message: I deleted the following material because at the time .6 was doing this, there were conflicting policy statements on where the VfD tag should be placed. A little over a year ago someone (mistakenly) used VfD as an example of a tag that goes on discussion pages, not the article page. This conflicts with Wiki's page deletion policy and it has been corrected. (DotSix, predictably, is reverting the correction.) But since the policy statements were conflicting, I don't think we can "charge" DotSix with moving the tag improperly. 
:#Revert war deleting VfD tag, leading to 3RR violation:  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ATyranny_of_the_majority&diff=20022173&oldid=20004945  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ATyranny_of_the_majority&diff=20054034&oldid=20023378  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ATyranny_of_the_majority&diff=20118246&oldid=20062634  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ATyranny_of_the_majority&diff=20135259&oldid=20129094  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ATyranny_of_the_majority&diff=20138465&oldid=20135951
I respectfully disagree, but will allow the deletion to stand.  I think that the effort to move the VfD tag was not vandalsim, but the fact that it was moved five times is a 3RR war.  
There are enough charges against DotSix that do not have any technical defenses so that I agree this one can be deleted.  Robert McClenon 01:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted Charge of Removing VfD
Talk:Pillow fight

message: hi,This is gary.i wanted to know the rule of the pillow fight.please tell me about the pillow fight.please send to me as soon as possible. thank you very much.
My E-mail: xianqin_gary@yahoo.com.cn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.30.148.182 (talk • contribs) 
:Is it appropriate to delete nonsense comments on the Talk page?  Someone please tell me the etiquette about this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnJHenderson (talk • contribs) 
::Hi John.  There's no firm policy.  True nonsense or vandalism may be deleted with impunity.  Requests, like the above, however, are fairly common and are not nonsense.  Gary might well want to know more about pillow fights.  This should be left here so thaht others can see and respond to it, even though it is not the purpose of Talk pages.  Eventually it will be archived if the talk page gets too cluttered.  NTK 21:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I would disagree. Kid Apathy 20:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I could see somebody getting something in their eye, or maybe being thrown off balance and falling, but what else?  Are there documented pillow fight injuries? Шизомби 05:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not taking into account the razor sharp feathers used in the seedier side of the pillow fight scene. :P Cctoide 16:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude...i play in hardcore pillow fight competitions, it's nothing to have razorblades embedded in the pillows in my scene. -Violask81976 01:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Since pillows are soft, injury rarely occurs." 

message: If anyone can verify when I Want to Hold Your Hand reached number one on the US pop charts, I'd be interested.  I question the reason for the Beatle's pillow fight.  Please see the main article.  JJ 17:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beatles Pillow Fight 

message: I see footnotes in this article, but no footnotes section.  Does the editor who added the footnotes need help fixing this? -- backburner001 20:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes 

message: There is conflicting information in this article about the world record for the largest pillow fight.  Someone should pin down what the correct record is.
I fixed it, using Google and Guinness. Shorelander 21:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Record 

message: It's been suggested on the talk page for Makura-Nage that that article ought to be merged into this one because it's about pillow fighting in Japan. What do you all say? In the meantime, I'll be putting up a template to alert most users. --Starry maiden Gazer 11:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible merger?
Talk:Salome Alexandra

message: The starting paragraphs are used to summarize the article which is the standard of Wikipedia. Jerm doesn't seem to go to the talk-page when he edits yet used weasel words to remove the  edits of others. I added multiple important points to the article, which I believe are as valid as anything else on there. 
First  to use the term Judea implies solely Judea, she in fact ruled a much larger area than Judea according to the sources, based on the current archaeological consensus. Mentioning the territory she ruled is valid. I had added a source which names the prominent archaeologists of Jewish history.
Second  it is believed and the article already claims it clearly that she favored what had been normative Judaism for the past 1900 years over particularly Hellenistic Judaism which was favored by her predecessors. There should be no problem with the lede stating that. Because that history is already in the body of the article.
Third she is part of Jewish history, and therefor mentioning her association with other female rulers of the Holy Land for the Jewish ethnicity and their history is a valid footnote.
Most importantly, studying the history of the page, I believe the whole article has been edited and pushed around bypeople not specifically interested in Jewish history but rather with minimizing and staining Jewish history.
Kirk loganewski (talk) 09:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You are comparing a judge to a monarch. Judges were assigned by multiples of people to punish and to watch over the different tribes of Israel until a monarch was formed that is only one ruler. Abimelech tried to form the monarch trough force but didn't exactly go as plan. I would support your ideas if you had a reliable source such as a ".edu" link. Your personal beliefs as you said "I believe are as valid as anything else on there" as I quote you apart in your discussion is against Wikipedia rules such as using: POV. -- ♣Jerm♣729 02:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted changes by editor 

message: 113.116.22.55 (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  One of the only two women? 

message: Even the Wayback Machine has nothing for that URL. KuudereKun 04:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Genealogy of the House of David" external link leads to nothing.