lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:List of tenants in 7 World Trade Center (1987–2001)

message: This list is not non-sense. It is a sourced list of the tenents in WTC7 prior to that building's collapse. It is part of a series of list-articles, including One World Trade Center tenants (article started September 14th 2001) and Two World Trade Center tenants (article started September 17th 2001). Seabhcán 22:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Speedy Delete?

message: I'd like to rename these articles to the standard list style:
*World Trade Center tenants -> List of World Trade Center tenants
*One World Trade Center tenants -> List of tenants in World Trade Center One
*Two World Trade Center tenants -> List of tenants in World Trade Center Two
*Seven World Trade Center tenants -> List of tenants in World Trade Center Seven
Any objections? Seabhcán 08:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename

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. 
The result of the move request was: MOVED. There has been no opposition. (non-admin closure)  Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: List of tenants in 7 World Trade Center →  Requesting move because there is a brand new building and this article could lead to a false impression that the tenants occupy the new 7 WTC. --Aaron106 (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 13 April 2022 

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. 
The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Clyde!Franklin! 18:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: List of tenants in 7 World Trade Center (1987–2001) →  – I am requesting a page move because the title that I want this article changed to is a redirect to this same article: List of tenants in 7 World Trade Center (1987–2001). Also, there is no article about the tenants for the new 7 World Trade Center and it has been built for 16 years. --Darth-Wiki-Man (talk) 14:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

text: Relisting comment: To form a clearer consensus echidnaLives - talk - edits 06:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 23 December 2022
Category talk:English occultists

message: You forgot Violet Firth, aka, Dion Fortune, author of "Psychic Self-Defense." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.5.126 (talk • contribs) 
* Dion Fortune is Welsh, not English. --Geoff Capp (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Jennie George

message: The article http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=32504 says that Jenny George has complained about edits here. Hackwrench 22:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Cut & Move

message: :Image:558571.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 04:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:558571.jpg
Talk:Julia Irwin

message: The article http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=32504 says that Julia Irwin has complained about edits here. Hackwrench 22:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Call of Duty: Finest Hour

message: I suggest we either remove the completely irrelavent and very poorly written character section, completely rewrite it in a more appropriate manner or give it its own page because it goes on for way too long. 72.152.135.105 (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ill probably do something like Call of Duty 4:Modern Warfare which is currently a good article along with Call of Duty 2 БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є  01:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, the format in those articles is excellent. 72.152.135.105 (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions

message: I think we should add a part called Call of Duty: Finest Hour Critical Reaction about the large number of people who were upset with the quality of the game after playing Call of Duty and, Call of Duty: United Offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caleb09 (talk • contribs) 
I agree, ALL information about the reaction of games, movies, should have information about how people enjoyed it, and how they didn't.
::This would not be allowed; opinions affect the neutral POV of articles.
::--NitemareDragon 00:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Critical reaction

message: Thought I might bring this to your attention:
http://www.gamesradar.com/f/the-wtf-world-of-wikipedia/a-2008062510326553058
--Broadbandmink (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thought provoking.. 

message: how about a controls section, to show how to shoot... The Master Of All Wolves (talk) 15:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  controls 

message: the springfield is avalible on multiplayer as the american sniper rifle i wont say alleid because the russians had the mosin-nagant scoped and im not sure what the british had  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.218.230 (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Lee Enfield. Very cool weapon. Dual Stripper Clip. But I gotta stick to the Kar98k for my favorite.--Flynn M Taggart (talk) 14:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  springfield 

message: The article seems to start with "It's a gay game". I can't seem to fix this  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.65.134 (talk) 03:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting Vandalism 

message: GREAT GAME GUYS WHO ELSE PLAYED IT?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.98.112.167 (talk) 00:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  BEST GAME 

message: There's no development / production section, which is shame, since there are so many juicy details. For instance, on the weekends Activision had representatives drive by the developer's offices to see how many cars were in the parking lot. And the game was originally to open with Tanya Pavelovna, "but Activision refused to open a firstperson shooter with a female character,... they feared a loss of sales to young males and wouldn't budge." I added the source to the top of the page. Such a goldmine of information. Neuroxic (talk) 08:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  the troubled development of this game is a story in and of itself
Category talk:Duelling fatalities

message: Duelling was legal for a long time.  While I sympathize with the opinion that considers deaths by duel to be murder, there is a useful distinction. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Murder Victims 

message: Some of the duels listed were swordfights, and I am sure there will be more as time goes on.  These hardly qualify as "death by firearms."  I am removing the category and will separately categorize those articles that qualify. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Firearms?
Talk:Pilot (Invader Zim)

message: Did this episode ever air? I've never seen it on Nicktoons in the UK and it says unaired here, but in the Miscelenia it says it aired in the Oh Yeah Cartoons. The source for this is TV.com which is user editable. In the Oh Yeah Cartoons episode list, Invader Zim doesn't appear. Does anyone know the truth? BillPP 22:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Aired on Oh Yeah Cartoons?
Talk:List of disputed issues in early Islamic history

message: Who is going to actually look up this page?--Jersey Devil 22:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't think that's such a big issue.  More importantly... why isn't this cited and why don't we have more substantive debates like when the prophet existed.  Date the Qur'an was fully written down? gren グレン 15:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: June 2006

message: Some editors seem to be continually edit-warring over this 716-characters edit:
*Claims by Muslims that Muhammad was heavily persecuted by polytheists in Mecca and persecuted by Meccans even in Medina. In Understanding Muhammad, Ali Sina dismissed all claims of persecution of Muslims as fabrications by Muslims themselves and said that "even Western authors have fallen into this trap." He cited contradictory stories about the early Muslim "martyrs" as proof of his claims.
*http://www.quranexplorer.com/quran/ Retrieved 11 December 2017.
We need to get Talk Page discussion on this edit to help resolve this issue. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 13:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: May 2019: Edit Warring
Talk:Prayer flag

message: I think it's imporant to note here, that current Tibetan Buddhism doesn't worship "deities" as stated. The Buddha in Tibetan Buddhism is a symbol and reminder of the long-term goal -- enlightenment. The deity or god reference to the flag comes from the Bon religion only, not modern Buddhism. This is my understanding... maybe someone with a greater knowledge of this could verify the accuracy of the section on the religious meanings of the flag? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.214.231 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 20 June 2006
:that is, shall we say, one way of putting it, and a way the Dalai Lama has put it.  But a lot of the activity in Tantric Buddhism would normally be construed in Western terms as worshipping deities - I think you need a high level of Buddist theology to explain why it is not or might not be, and not all practicioners of the religion would have that. (wasn't my text btw)Johnbod 03:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: Can anyone verify the hanging order? At the beginning of the article it says that lung ta are hung blue, white, red, green, and yellow, left to right, but states the opposite - yellow, green, red, white, and blue, left to right - towards the end. 
--Bentonia School 17:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea personally, though it seems that it could well vary by tradition / region / etc. I just looked on Flickr for examples by photo taken all over and I noticed that sometimes the white and blue are swapped (white, blue, red, green, yellow left to right) but most seemed to match the first pattern (blue, white, red, green, yellow left to right). - Owlmonkey (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order 

message: Can we get SVG of flags and their contents?
195.113.20.80 (talk) 15:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  SVG
Talk:James Bond: The Authorized Biography of 007

message: The long paragraph debating the canonicity of this book ought to be moved out of the lead section, to its own section somewhere in the main body. Also, reworded, because it's too much of a run-on sentence bridging several obscure concepts. Maybe say less, but word it better. Also: citations. 
As a frequenter of online BondForums, I am well aware of the canonicity debate of this book, and all other postFleming materials, and it is a fun debate. But unfortunately I don't think we can cite an online fanforum to prove the existence of a fan debate. Paradoxical, I know. And I doubt there's any published scholarly text covering this question, but if there is, then we should cite it.
J Edward Malone (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canonical Status Debate
Talk:Edie Brickell & New Bohemians

message: The opening section says that Brickell left the band, but it's not clear exactly when. Later sections make clear that she returned to the band. When? I've just read this and the Edie Brickell article, but I can't figure it out. Dewmhoig (talk) 02:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edie Brickell leaves the band? 
Talk:Suitcase

message: I'm skeptical that the adoption of smart suitcases is accelerating as the article asserts.  After initial introduction, they met with strong reception but when the US FAA imposed restrictions on lithium-ion batteries on flights, it seems to have dramatically slowed adoption of these devices.  We need a source to back up the statement that the adoption rate of these cases continues to increase. Toddst1 (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  smart suitcase adoption rate increasing? 

message: Her book Mother of Invention and this related article claim that wheeled suitcases existed in the marketplace before 1972. Mapsax (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Katrine Marçal]] 

message: There certainly were suitcases a long time before the 1930s. No one mentions soft-sided suitcases, that were popular for non-airline travel, too, a metal frame in a canvas body. 
What are the types of suitcases? Not just materials, but sizes, like the pullman or weekender as a dimensional type. 141.239.177.153 (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  No real history! 

message: From https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/jun/24/mystery-of-wheelie-suitcase-how-gender-stereotypes-held-back-history-of-invention, based on the author's Att uppfinna världen: hur historiens största feltänk satte käppar i hjule, published in English as Mother of invention: how good ideas get ignored in an economy built for men, it appears the idea goes back at least to 1952. Mcljlm (talk) 02:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wheeled luggage
Talk:The Kidd Kraddick Morning Show

message: If the info is true about the awards, then I can't dispute that this entry is notable.  However, I question the veracity of some of this information.  For example: Al joined Kidd Kraddick in the Morning after being a client. He advertised his limo service on the show, ran up a huge bill, and was forced by the collection agency to work off his debt by joining the show.  This sounds less like a fact than Jerry Seinfeld's fictitous rejected sitcom idea or a hackneyed radio executive's idea of humor.  Remember this is an encylopedia, not an ad. Kgwo1972 22:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual?

message: The entire article reads like an ad or press release.
:Fixed. — OcatecirT 03:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased and NPOV

message: I was looking at the former members section and I thought maybe the guy they called Sexy Jack should be on. He left probably 2 years ago now. He used to be on the show a lot and left to go back to England. Do you think he should be added?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.77.136.19 (talk) 02:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Former member

message: There seems to be a persistent IP editor changing the syndicate from YEA Networks to Fox News Radio.  I cannot find any sources to support this; the only reliable information I can find supports the opposite. I've asked for source in edit comments three or four times, and left questions for the IP but have received no responses.  While I don't care much about what is shown, it must be sourced, and it certainly cannot say one thing and still have sources that say the opposite.  I'll leave another note for the IP to discuss here; any other opinions would be welcome. Kuru (talk) 14:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syndicate 

message: J-Si recently was a former member of Kidd Kraddick Morning Show, I think it was because he quit his job?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.9.114.198 (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former member
Talk:Aluminium acetate

message: removed Importance notice: the whole point of Wiki chemistry is collecting chemical monographs, this invitation extends to all chemicals. Already an article in German Wiki and this article referenced from acetic acid and Burow's solution V8rik 22:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

message: If this article covers three chemicals, it seems we shouldn't have an infobox.  Unless someone objects (or knows how to make the infobox cover three chemicals and still look OK), I'll remove it in a few days. --JaGa (talk) 01:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Infobox? 

message: The article has been tagged as a set index article since 09:18, 7 July 2015 by‎ Project Osprey.  I was not aware of the status and its implication until recently.  To my understanding, the correct course of action for this article would be to relocate/merge most of the content to relevant articles.  Images and infoboxes are not shown in any of set index articles I sampled from the the category, :Category:Chemistry_set_index_pages. --Taweetham (talk) 14:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Just delete the chemboxes, they're already present of the main articles. --Project Osprey (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:    Deleted.  What about the text and references?  --Taweetham (talk) 07:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think set indexes are allowed refs. Either way I wouldn't worry too much, what's there seems fine to me. --Project Osprey (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Set index - remove most of the content
Talk:AirLand Battle

message: What was ill-fated about this? 67.186.14.18 (talk) 03:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Ill fated "rapid reaction force"

message: Thomas Schelling has nothing to do with choke points. I'll remove that.
Wynnes—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.188.108.48 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 19 June 2006.
I could very well be wrong, but I believe the core statement "The point of AirLand doctrine is to stop second-echelon forces from reinforcing the enemy" is wrong. I believe that that is actually a description of a different doctrine known as "Follow-On Force Attack". AirLand Battle as a doctrine is primarily concerned with forces in the forward battle area (i.e. first echelon forces). My source for this information is "Military Strategy in Transiion: Defense and Deterrence in the 1980s", pp 5-6.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bmacmahon (talk • contribs) 00:42, 10 August 2006.
Tmdblya
Seems the example given from the Gulf War is a poor one. The destruction of units int he front and back of the column to halt its advance while subsequent attacks wiped out the rest of the formation has little to do with the larger AirLand battle doctrine. This might more compared to Finnish "motti" tactics used in the Winter War of 1939-40. Recommend removal.
As for the disagreement with the emphasis in the article re: first/second eschelon attacks, I think the additional references I've added would back-up the current article's description.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tmdblya (talk • contribs) 18:12, 2 September 2006.
Doesn't appear to be much interest in this doctrine now, but what there is to the article is so "Army-centric", in the argot of the article,that it's POV.--131.238.92.85 (talk) 11:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/753491.shtml
For a long time, the Air-Sea Battle (ASB) concept has prevailed in the US.
...
As senior US officials and experts seek a way out, T. X. Hammes, a retired US Marine Corps colonel, recently published an article, "Offshore Control is the Answer," in Proceedings Magazine under the US Naval Institute.
:Okay to add that in? Hcobb (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about using a source 

message: However Air-Sea Battle is about as far as one can possibly get from the new concept of operations.
So will the new spin-off page be say AirSea Battle with pointers at the top of each of the two pages to get readers back on the right track? Hcobb (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  We already have an Air-Sea Battle page 

message: It would be a lot more radiant with a couple of images to make it a bit less of a wall of text.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zelaxe (talk • contribs) 19:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is in a dire need of pictures.
Talk:Orc (Dungeons & Dragons)

message: Greenish purple is not a possible colour.  Green is blue and yellow and purple is blue and red.  On the colour wheel, red and yellow are on the opposite sides of blue, therefore, greenish purple would be blue.24.80.226.228 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Greenish Purple
Talk:Wins

message: We already have Win (baseball). This should be a disambig page between the baseball stat and Windows Internet Naming Service. I'm going to stir up some discussion on Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball before making too many changes. BigNate37 23:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added PROD tag. BigNate37 23:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm going to redirect it to Win (baseball). --Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: BigNate37 is right, was re-directed incorrectly as well. Re-direct to disambiguation page instead. --AnimalFriend 19:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a Redundant Page
Talk:Snoezelen

message: I corrected the translation of this verb to "to snuggle, also: to sniff" (with the first one being the more relevant meaning here, in my eyes  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BelleM (talk • contribs) 08:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...from Dutch verb "snuffelen" (to seek out, to explore)
Talk:Frederico Chaves Guedes

message: Any further additions describing the subject of this article as a muslim, jew or any other religion without specific evidence will be reverted. Even if he is religious, it's only relevant to his notability if he has publicly declared it to be or made overt reference to it in his capacity as a professional footballer. While such assertions might not qualify as vandalism, contravention of WP:3RR still applies. Nice one. Deizio talk 23:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Additional - A google search for ^"Frederico Chaves Guedes" +muslim^ comes up with zero matches which come close to verifying Fred's religion as muslim . This strengthens the case that such revisions are vandalism, and at the very least puts the issue within Jimbo's opinion that unsourced / unsourceable information should be "removed aggressively". Deizio talk 23:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: This page has been temporarily closed to edits from anons and new editors. Hopefully the deluge of irrelevant, unsourced statements will have died down when the page is reopened. Deizio talk 13:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been ten days now; I propose we experimentally unprotect. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection 

message: the infobox and the stats table completely contradict each other. any clues? Chensiyuan 12:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradictory statistics