lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Gay agenda/Archive 1

message: If Dobson gets six lines, I think that LGBT folks deserve a response.  I added a cite.  Hopefully that's sufficient.
Dave 08:55, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
While homosexual agenda redirects here Homosexual Agenda is an article covering a famous darkly satirical text about what people who actually think there's an evil gay conspiracy (drag ninjas!) might believe its goals to be. --Kizor 17:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

message: I've rewritten or modified the entire article and I took care to show both points of view.
AndyinMN 05:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite, attepted neutrality
Talk:Jim Richards (racing driver)

message: Don't forget Jim Richards came second in Targa NZ in 1996, and won it in 2004 and 2005. Targa NZ is about twice the distance of Targa Tasmania! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.55.230.123 (talk • contribs) .
:Please find a reference and add it to the article. --Scott Davis Talk 11:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Targa NZ

message: The section on Bathurst 1992 needs to be re-written because of numerous inaccuracies. The red flag was already out at the tim of Richards accident, he was not the cause, I would be concerned of whether that might be considered libellous. Additionally result were not declared at the last completed lap (lap 144) but the lap prior to that (lap 143) in an exemption based on the length of the circuit and the time from the first crash during the storm and until the last crash meant that under existing rules, some of the crashed vehicles were classified finishers and some were not.Falcadore 15:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia
Talk:Sammy L. Davis

message: SFC Davis was medically retired from the US Army.  As a retiree he remains a member of the US armed forces.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.218.177 (talk) 11:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Retired" not "former" soldier 

message: His wife is still alive. 174.164.220.61 (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dixie Davis is not dead
Category talk:United States Army Medal of Honor recipients

message: Why differentiate this fromthe previous (and more widely used) Medal of Honor winners?
Scott Mingus 03:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Some folks are continually changing the Frank Tompkins and the Battle of Columbus pages to indicate that he had a CMOH. He did not. Please keep an eye on this page to make sure that they don't do it here also. --72.47.85.22 (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Listing
Talk:Richard De Wert

message: Overall, good work. I think you should avoid abbreviations - "USN" in the infobox and "MoH citation" should be changed to "United States Navy" or "US Navy" and "Medal of Honor citation" respectively. Also, take a look at some articles on other Medal of Honor recipients - I think it would be nice to have some consistency in the formatting of the citations. LordAmeth 09:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment
Talk:Star (game theory)

message: I know just enough game theory to scrape the surface of what this article means... And that's really not saying much.
Any possibility of a rewrite to make accessible to the lay audience?  
I know, I know, "be bold," but I don't have the know-how today to do that.  Maybe tomorrow. wasserperson 03:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  untitled
Talk:Saar Offensive

message: Does this have any sources? Especially the french mobilisation in August is "interesting". --Matthead 03:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article is exactly similar to the Saar Offensive section in the Phoney War article, with the exception of the addition of a picture to this article, so this page ought to be integrated in to the Phoney War article instead?Assassin3577 (talk) 09:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a distinct and separate, LARGE scale military operation, it shoud most certainly have it´s own page, and should probably be expanded.   In fact the current version feels seriously biased and anti-French(for example it says there SHOULD have been 40 divisions taking part, it doesn´t mention that over 30 divisions DID take part, instead making it sound like it never became a fullscale attack).   The offensive was a clear failure, but the reasons for how it happened and why it was ended prematurely are complex and have little if anything to do with any German "counteroffensive".
DW75 (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, a basic review of 1939 international borders and a good topographic map make clear how few good avenues any French attack had without invading neutral nations.  Too much discussion of the Saar Offensive in general (not just here) fails to examine very basic terrain and political aspects of the offensive. W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similar content 

message: This article is so unclear it's not even apparent what offensives took place and what only reached the planning stage. Let's see if this can be remedied. CapnZapp (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  unclear events 

message: This article is unclear, it suggests that the offensive ended on 16 September, but discusses events up to 17 October. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  End in September or October? 

message: There was no "Saarland" before 1945, the Saar is not "in the Rhine valley", and the "Siegfried Line" existed in 1917, not in 1939. Up yours, Donald!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:E2:3701:D137:F5BD:99DF:D64A:53 (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello BoJo, wanna learn something? 

message: Not a single source for the claim that France had planned a 40 division offensive in September 1939. Considering their mobilisation system and the need for 'forces d'interval' in the Maginot Line assembling such a force was simply impossible. The claim of French numeric superiority in the West is also quite simply false as the 'réserve B' formation cannot be counted at this date unlike German units of the first 'Wellen'. Leeb's Heeresgruppe C had sufficient force for defense in case of a serious Allied advance. But anyhow, the issue here is sourcing, some sections of the article include such, most, particularly concerning planning and forces available to both sides. For the later I could recommend 'Verbände und Truppen...' and 'les Grandes Unitées...'. --Caranorn (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  sources
Talk:Tydings–McDuffie Act

message: I happened to look at this article today more closely than I have in some time, and have rewritten a key paragraph which read as follows:
I was initially bothered by "which became the government" in the first sentence, when I couldn't identify what that related to in the preceding phrase; then bothered by not being able to find anything about a 12-year "transitional period" in the act and didn't get the point of the italicization — which appears contrary to WP:ITALICS. I'm not much of a wordsmith myself, and what I thought would be be a minor fix turned into a rewrite. 
Initially, I rewrote the first sentence up to the comma into the following:
The remainder of the original paragraph concerned US military presence in the Philippines and US authority to call up Philippine military assets during the period prior to complete independence. That seems like a minor point in the scope of the act but I left it in, except for the final sentence, with the removal of the "Furthermore" and some other rewording. 
The final sentence appeared to misconstrue the act, saying that it permitted the US Navy to maintain bases in the Philippines for two years after independence. As I read the act, however, it empowers the US president to enter into negotiations for adjustment regarding that within two years after independence and specifies, "pending such adjustment and settlement the matter of naval reservations and fueling stations shall remain in its present status." I've rewritten that bit accordingly. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrote a Paragraph 

message: This edit caught my eye. It seems to me that this sentence does not have sufficient topical weight for inclusion in this article. I don't feel strongly enough about this to boldly delete the sentence, but I thought I would mention that here. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similar bill for independence of Puerto Rico
Template talk:User Australian

message: In case your wondering why I canged the image to the aboriginal flag, it's because the "Australian Flag" (which is really an illistration of the Souther Cross with the union jack in the corner) represents the planting of the Union jack (which aboriginal people almost inveriably claim to have "never changed the law at all") and, actually, white Australia.  I would be interested to know what aborinignal wikipedians (If there are any) think of this edit.Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian)
:You can't use that image. It isn't fair use. The normal flag is. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 03:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Talk:The Silver Sword

message: I have improve this article. Here's a tip on improving this article.
:*If you have The Silver Sword book, the book can provide loads & load of information. Aranho 18:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Improvment

message: I am going to start writing a summary of the whole thing.. Ill put it up ASAP. Hope it will help
Dragonskin29 13:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Updating it

message: I have an early paperback copy right here, so I have added the infobox. Clares 03:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox added 

message: I have removed all of the characters from the list that did not seem important.  I haven't read the book myself, but I am sure that you do not need to add groups of people to the list, like Nazis. Mynameisnotpj (talk) 11:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characters 

message: Anyone know who published the book first?
Smirnov (talk) 14:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Publisher(s) 

message: NEED A PIC OF JOSEPH BALIKI  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.42.74 (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  PICTURES 

message: Currently the synopsis says that at the end of the narrative,  Jan gets a new Jewish cat named Arlo. I have a copy of the first edition, and the final chapter does not mention this at all. Did Serraillier expand the book subsequently for later editions?Thomas Peardew (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Cat removed entirely, as it is not present in the 2003 edition. However, I have added a link (in the lead) to the Pestalozzi children's village. --Verbarson talkedits 14:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final chapter - synopsis 

message: I feel that the two TV series would be worth a section, if not a Wiki page of their own. Valetude (talk) 12:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  TV adaptations
Talk:Massachusetts Route 6A

message: Doesn't the state maintenance begin right under the bridge, i.e. at the crossing point between 6 and 6A. While the access between the two roads is somewhat circuitous, 6A begins when Sandwich Road crosses 6 and not at some random point. Polaron 03:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen the Mile marker and End signage in question back when I lived on the Cape...the state maintains ALL of Sandwich Road all the way to the Bourne Bridge south rotary, but we already know it's not *all* 6A.  The state just simply never stopped maintaining it from back in the days when it was "US 6 Bypass".  -EmiOfBrie 03:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly enough, though, the place of first maintenance (Bourne Bridge Rotary), the first East 6A sign (just east of the Exit 1 offramp, before the Sagamore Bridge underpass), and Mile 0 (which is between Adams and Ben Abbey St) are completely different locations. One can easily make the claim that it starts at the Bourne Bridge Rotary (which it should), at the intersection of Sandwich Rd and Exit 1 Eastbound, or (as the miles claim) from Exit 1 WESTBOUND. I think it is safest to say Sandwich Rd in Bourne, but where the actual western end is located is not really clear from signage.Anderfreude 01:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Western end 

message: I noticed a comment asking if there was a source for "this" regarding the silent multiplex History tidbit.  Is "this" in reference to the multiplex, the mile markers, both?  If it's in reference to the mile markers, I used to live right on Route 6A on mile 55.6 (at the family-owned Days' Cottages resort, if you want a place point of reference).  When I was a kid, vandals uprooted the 55.6 marker and buried it up to its neck elsewhere on my parents' property, and I unbolted the marker's reflectors and kept them for a number of years.  MassHighway never replaced it, since the road had just been turned over to town maintenance.  Marker 55.7 was (probably still is) on my parents' property as well, and after years of leaning at a weird angle due to a car hitting it, I straightened it out about 10 years ago when I was doing Cottages grounds maintanance.  - EmiOfBrie 21:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Source for what?
Talk:List of death deities

message: There is a distinction between a god of death and a god of the dead, and Osiris fits the latter bill. As far as I can tell, he was never regarded as a personification of death, nor ever controlling it, rather, most of his mythology is about life and fertility. Such a place in the Egyptian pantheon is occupied by, possibly among others, Seth or Anepu. --The Dark Peria (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw the articles and I dont agree with you.--Taranet (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Osiris? 

message: I've removed the NPOV template, please use  for sections or  for sentences, then detail issues here. This will help address them in a timely manner. - RoyBoy 02:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV removed 

message: I removed 'Zahhak or Dahaka (Persian mythology)' because Zahhak is a devil-human but not a death god.--Taranet (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zahhak (Persian mythology) 

message: What about Baltic & Slavic gods and goddesses of death? There are plenty of them. Rich mythology which survived until today(for example Vampires & Werewolves derive from Slavic mythology) & even new enthusiasts who worship these deities, especially young people, turning away from Christian religions and seeking their roots of their ancestors.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.210.213.222 (talk) 09:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baltic, Slavic god and goddesses of death? 

message: Buddhism doesn't have "gods or a god" I noticed right at the beggining that Yama is mentioned for both Buddhism and Hindu, but it should only be mentioned for Hindu.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.106.183.195 (talk) 15:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buddhism? 
Talk:Shohé Tanaka

message: "He constructed an Enharmonium able to play in 53 equal temperament"
In the 1890 US patent 443,305, which discloses a keyboard like those on the harmonium in the Kunitachi  College of Music collection as well as the ones pictured in the Reed Organ Society database, he wrote "absolutely true musical tune or harmony." Mireut 13:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Harmonium

message: You might want to add his dates of birth and death. Perhaps there is an article in the Japanese Wikipedia that would have more information about him. TruthbringerToronto 04:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion
Talk:Loser (novel)

message: he gets cancer
--67.85.241.219 (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  this should be taken off. 

message: Actually in the book it doesn't say that Donald is autistic. It says that he is an unusual kid  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oddmountain (talk • contribs) 22:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autistic?
Talk:Philanthropies

message: The article keeps refering to the Church. Is this the Catholic Church? Midnightcomm 03:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The whole article reads like an advertisement, needs a major re-write. Ledenierhomme 23:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've deleted the POV and Merge templates, while the article could be improved with any shortfalls / issues with the organization, that merely makes it incomplete rather than POV. Keeping the self ref template will maintain this concern. - RoyBoy 02:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: I tried to call the LDS Foundation and I got LDS Philanthropies and discovered that they are now two different organizations which involved a name change which is contributing to the confusion.
Kaydell2 (talk) 03:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  LDS Foundation and LDS Philanthropies are Different Organizations?
Talk:Kronos

message: There should be two separate disambig. pages.  Anyone object?--Gephart 03:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chronos vs Kronos

message: Kronos is also a major software company providing Time & Labor Management, MRP, Payroll, etc. software. I'm planning on updating some related pages in the near future. Anyone object to me linking here to disambiguate? Jwgloverii 23:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kronos 
Talk:Frederick Walker Castle

message: Can someone post his MoH citation, and perhaps elaborate in the article why he received the MoH? Thanks!--Daysleeper47 02:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Medal of Honor Citation
Talk:John William Finn

message: Navy News story if anyone wants to add it in. Medal of Honor Recipient Lt John Finn Visits Namesake Arizona White Boat --Brad (talk) 05:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Finn was Honored at Pearl Harbor

message: The awards are incomplete.  As he served on active duty until 1956 he is entitled to the National Defense Service Medal.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.91.139.108 (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medals 

message: Sir, why the change to the pre-1959 flag? I understand that Lieutenant Finn left the Navy in '56, however that doesn't mean that his allegiance ended when he retired.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fine, just curious. Thanks for the response!--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Butting in, it's partly for this reason that I always follow the "avoid flag icons in infoboxes" guideline at MOSFLAG. When there's no flag at all, you can't have arguments about which flag to use... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag
Talk:Donaldson v Becket

message: It would be nice to have a full-text web link.  I can't find one with Google like I usually can, and Findlaw etc. are just for American stuff.  Anybody got a link? ejstheman 04:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Donaldson v Becket is the preferred scholarly form—see, for example:
Michael F. Suarez S.J., and H.R. Woudhuysen, Oxford Companion to the Book (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010);
William St Clair, The Reading Nation in the Romantic Period (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004);
James Raven, The Business of Books: Booksellers and the English Book Trade (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2007);
Michael F. Suarez S.J., and Michael L. Turner, eds., The Cambridge History of the Book in Britain: Volume V 1695–1830 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).
--Iangadd (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Jheald (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please consider changing the entry heading to Donaldson v Becket 

message: Contrary to the claim in the 'significance' section that the Lords rejected the notion of common law copyright in perpetuity, Burrow's report, as described here, states that a majority (7 to 4) of the Judges accepted that such a right had existed before the Statute of Anne, but decided that it had been abrogated by the Statute.  Maybe there is some way of reconciling the two statements (e.g. Burrow got it wrong, or the body of the Lords effectively overruled the Judges), but the conflict should at least be dealt with.86.185.116.135 (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have re-edited the article a bit, and hope that this is now all a bit more clear. Jheald (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significance
Talk:Captain Ron

message: Haha, where was this "Ron Con"?  At someone's house?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JaredBond (talk • contribs) 23:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I don't think a one-off article on Rotten Tomatoes where Nathan Rabin (as much as I like him) half-jokingly wishes Captain Ron were a cult movie is worth mentioning, let alone an argument that "there was resurgence in interest in the film during the mid-2010s." I assume this was a joke and it should probably be removed. Jscherer42 (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popularity resurgence
Talk:Empress Chung

message: This article fails to mention that the North Korean version of *Empress Chung [Wanghu SimChŏng]* is slight different from the South Korean Version of *Empress Chung [Wanghu SimChŏng}]*.  The South Korean version of *Empress Chung* has a minute not included in the North Korean version of *Empress Chung*, as well as some slightly altered scenes and dialog.  This was briefly discussed during The Korea Society's special screening of *Empress Chung*, before *Empress Chung*'s brief North American release.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.238.93 (talk) 00:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  North Korean version versus South Korean Version. 

message: I took out the lost descriptors from this article. I don't think that's an accurate classification. The film apparently played at a festival as recently as 2019, and its director is still alive and the studios behind it are operational. It seems implausible that the movie doesn't exist in any form, and it strikes me as inaccurate to slap the "lost" label on this page because it doesn't have a home media release. Sound off if you disagree. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Lost" film
File talk:Flag of Australia template.svg

message: The four large stars in the Southern Cross are described as: "Outer diameter 3/14 length of flag".  Shouldn't that be 1/14, not 3/14?  Note that 1/14 is consistent with the body of the article, which says these stars have  an outer diameter equal to 1/7 of the flag's width (same as 1/14 of the length).  Also, 3/14 of the length would be almost 1/4 of the length, or almost half the width, which would obviously be way too big. Richwales 04:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

message: The description of the position for delta crucis is identical to that of alpha crucis. I am not sure what the correct figures are.
* I have fixed this using data from the earlier version of the file, which matches the measurements of the flag and the description at http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/flags/flag-specs.jpg. - Jpo 19:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delta Crucis Position 

message: Compare with http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/flags/flag-specs.jpg which seems to be more sensible. (From http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-flags/australian_flag.htm. -- SGBailey 13:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag spec 

message: Beta Crucis is spelt 'Belta Crucis' in the SVG. --Infradig (andrew) 09:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling error