lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Port Arthur massacre (Australia)

message: In the Attacks section, under Port Arthur Historic Site, the term 'wasps' links to the insect, rather than identifying this term to mean White Anglo Saxon Protestants W.A.S.P
At around 1:10 p.m., Bryant paid the entry fee for the site and proceeded to park near the Broad Arrow Café, near the water's edge. The site security manager told him to park with the other cars because that area was reserved for camper-vans and the car park was busy that day. Bryant moved his car to another area and sat in his car for a few minutes. He then moved his car back near the water, outside the café. The security manager saw him go up to the café carrying a "sports-type bag" and a video camera, but ignored him. Bryant went into the café and purchased a meal, which he ate on the deck outside. He attempted to start conversations with people about the lack of wasps in the area and there not being as many Japanese tourists as usual. He appeared nervous and "quite regularly" looked back to the car-park and into the café.[1] 220.253.229.26 (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2022 

message: Reading the section titled "Attacks" I notice the only mention of the deaths of the Martins at their property was at the beginning of the article. Why are they not mentioned and why does the timeline start at the arrival of the couple to the Seascape? 47.151.213.85 (talk) 06:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing murder of the Martins 

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.  Favonian (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Port Arthur massacre (Australia) →  – per WP:NCAUST – as this is an Australian article, this article should use the relevant jurisdiction as its disambiguator. SHB2000 (talk) 12:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 27 November 2022 

message: The redirect Port Arthur massacre (Australia has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 01:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Port Arthur massacre (Australia]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Wikipedia talk:Writing better articles/Integrate changes

message: Supporters of this rule include:
* Larry Sanger
* Linus Tolke
* Pinkunicorn (strongly)
* Koyaanis Qatsi
* sjc
* Janet Davis
* drj
* Mike Dill (hard isn't it?),
* Damian Yerrick (who personally doesn't think it's that hard),
* GWO
* tbc
* AxelBoldt, 24,
* Enchanter I agree strongly! If the text you want to add flows logically it's so much easier to read the article
* Karen Johnson
* Rotem Dan (This is a significant characteristic of brilliant prose)
* r3m0t 10:29, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

message: Perhaps we could change
* please place and edit your comments so that they flow seamlessly with the present text.
to something like
* Go ahead and append comments at the end of the article. But please move and edit such comments -- even those written by others -- so that they flow seamlessly with the present text.
?
If this were really a hard rule -- ""Don't ever add add comments to the bottom of the article." -- then the proper thing to do would be to post to the User_talk page of the user who added that comment, telling him Don't ever do that again.
But I think "integrate changes" is a much softer rule -- sort of like the "spell correctly" rule. If I see a typo, I quietly fix it.
--DavidCary 15:14, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  What should I do when I find (someone else's) disjointed comments at the end ? 

message: At present there are many articles in the Wikipedia namespace that seek to give guidance on how to write better articles. I propose consolidating these into a much smaller number. On User:Jongarrettuk/Better writing guide I propose how these could be consolidated. The proposal is not to change advice, just to consolidate it. If I have inadvertently moved what you consider to be good advice that is currently in the Wikipedia namespace, please re-add it. I'm hope that the proposal to merge all these articles, in principle, will be welcomed. Of course, it may be preferred to have 2, 3 or 4 inter-connected articles than just one and would welcome advice on how this could be done. (In particular, perhaps all the guidance on layout should be spun off into one consolidated article on layout.) I'm also aware that putting lots of different bits of advice together may throw up anomalies or bits that people now disagree with (including bits that I myself disagree with:) ). I ask for support for the consolidation. Once the consolidation has happened, the advice can be changed in the normal way. Please feel free to improve on the current draft consolidation, but don't remove or add advice that is not currently on the Wikipedia namespace. If all goes well, I'll add a new Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles page on the 19th, though maybe some bits of the new article will need to be phased in over a longer period. I'll also take care to preserve all the archived discussion in one place. jguk 19:47, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to consolidate advice on writing better articles
Talk:United States Armed Forces

message: I am questioning the need for a section in the article infobox that is titled "Industry". With all the flags and the length of the list wouldn't be better presented in the body of the article under the title of perhaps "International suppliers". Just asking for a friend...Cuprum17 (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Industry section of infobox 

message: when is the tag goign to be rmeoved now tis this moth is has ther since last June! 64.189.18.35 (talk) 11:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. User:CanonNi (talk|contribs) 11:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2024 

message: Please change "Chinese's People's Liberation Army" to "Chinese People's Liberation Army" 73.189.62.15 (talk) 06:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Charliehdb (talk) 09:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2024 

message: Requires copyediting to remove tag which is there more then a year now! 64.189.18.24 (talk) 05:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you. Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 12:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2024 

message: 2600:1700:15E0:70A0:F86B:623E:CB12:B076 (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The "chief minister" field is currently "broken" after this edit to the template. Hold off manually fixing it for now; I'm going to check with the editor to see why this change was needed and if we can just revert their edit (which would be much easier than going out and fixing every instance of the template). Liu1126 (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

text: After discussion, the edit to the template has been reverted. Liu1126 (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2024
Talk:Identity function

message: I disagree with a merge. Yes, these are related functions, actually both of them work by f(x)=x. However, the two articles look at the matter from a very different perspective. Typically one uses inclusion maps when one thinks of embedding a space into another, bigger space. The identity function on the other hand shows up when one deals with automorphisms of a given space, and related business. That is to say, it is true that both the identity function and the inclusion map have the formula f(x)=x, but that's all they have in common. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 11:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Oleg, I think these article should stay separate. Paul August ☎ 19:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The identity map 1A and the inclusion map 1A is exactly the same thing. The articles should explain that to the reader. There is no mathematical reason to distinguish. There might be a historical reason, I don't know that. Bo Jacoby 13:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The identity map is surjective i.e. onto, whereas the inclusion map 1A:A -> B is not, except for the trivial case where A = B. So they are not the same thing. Paul August ☎ 13:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Of course there is a point. Two functions are equal if they have the same domain, same codomain, and same output for given input. So, strictly speaking, you are incorrect; being surjective is part of what the function is about, not part of the codomain. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging with [[inclusion map]] 

message: Could someone, please, explain, in plain English why the Identity function is useful?
What kind of applications does it have?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.199.76 (talk) 01:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is it useful?
Wikipedia talk:Don't use external links where we'll want Wikipedia links

message: I think we need to be clear about what exactly we're "supporting" and "opposing" here.
I agree with Sam. Clearly we should prefer linking to the Democratic National Committee, for example, over linking to the Democratic National Committee in the text of an article. To me, that's what this guideline is about. But that's not the same as discouraging text inside of external links.
Personally, I don't like the "numbered" (unnamed) external link style  unless it functions more or less as a footnote (after a quote, for example). In fact, when I first saw a numbered link in Wikipedia, I thought it did refer to a footnote on the same page. It wasn't until I looked at the article source that I realized it was because the external link had no text in it. I tend to view that practice as a mistake — except, as I've said, when the link actually functions as a footnote.
Since external links are already formatted differently than internal ones, why discourage the use of text in them? If someone has linked to an external source when there is, or should rightly be, an internal one, sure, change it to an internal link. If an article is peppered with "see also" or "for more information" links to external sources, yes, move them to an "External links" section. But some people (here and elsewhere) seem to advocate the systematic removal of text from all external links in the main article, a practice I most definitely oppose.
- dcljr 00:20, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't we're talking about actually removing anything. just the method of presenting the information. The issue is consistency and what people expect to see, especially insofar as an external link may take longer to load. I think the "cure" of confusing internal and external links in in-line copy is worse than the disease of confusing number links with footnotes. A third way might me to alter the software so what are now number links show up as the external icon instead of supplying a number, since the number isn't really meaningful. -- Cecropia | Talk 02:14, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification
Talk:French language

message: In the "Numerals" section under "Vocabulary", this part should be replaced :
In the case of currencies, the currency markers are substituted for decimal point, i.e. "5$7" for "5 dollars and 7 cents".
By :
In the case of currencies, practices differ depending on the currency. For euro, the currency marker can be subsistuted for decimal point, i.e. "5€07" for "5 euros and 7 cents", or be simply placed after the decimal number, i.e. "5,07€". When using other currencies, the latter option is preferred, for example "5,07$". Snekye (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Question: So... what changes do you exactly request? ABG  (Talk/Report any mistakes here)  12:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2024 

message: change "Quebec Board of the French Language" to "Quebec Office of the French Language", "office" is in its french name as well 108.255.197.210 (talk) 04:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ABG  (Talk/Report any mistakes here)  12:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2024 

message: I am not sure if this is a good source, but I speak some French, I have listened to French speakers, and I tend to hear the pronunciation of the language being [lɑ̃ŋ fʁɑ̃sɛ] more times than not, I didn’t remove the other one, but I added this to show to readers pronouncatiion can vary ChauConlangs (talk) 01:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronouncation 

message: I’m going back in a little while and I’ll let her out 2001:1A40:16F4:BF00:1D87:ECBA:3F91:ADA5 (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Math 

message: Under Grammar > Nouns > link to the grammatical genders article.
'For nouns regarding the living, their "grammatical genders" often correspond to that which they refer to.' Rumboehe (talk) 02:34, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: User:CanonNi (talk • contribs) 03:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2024
Talk:Hansa

message: Fr. Jonat -- you knew very well that there was an article for Hanseatic League -- why did you create a page called Hansa, when there was no need.  I  have redirected Hansa to Hanseatic League, rather than your "see hanseatic League" sentence.  PLEASE  try to LEARN how the software works -- it allows you to create a link with an alternate name -- like Hansa  the link directs to the "official" article name, but the link says whatever the second part says. JHK
---
Duh!  Thanks, Damian, forgot about nowiki!!JHK
----
When mentioning the "Hansa" it is, I think, almost always the Hansaeitic League that is ment (just compare number of links to either page, compare page size, compare dab pages). Thus I will direct the link to "Hansa" and put the record label as a "see also" at the bottom. --Fred-Chess July 8, 2005 13:49 (UTC)
----
Hansa means 'swan' in the Sanskrit language and many related East Indian languages. Given that 'luft' in German means 'air' and add 'hansa' to it, you get lufthansa, the airlines, whose logo is a flying swan. It is also interesting that the swastika symbol is borrowed from India.
----
There is a German manufacturer of specialty vehicles named Hansa.  I don't know if they are related to / descended from the Hansa car brand or a separate company.  Their full name is "HANSA Maschinenbau Vertriebs- und Fertigungs GmbH"; they have a web site.  70.185.217.138 02:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion
Wikipedia talk:Highlighting conventions

message: At present there are many articles in the Wikipedia namespace that seek to give guidance on how to write better articles. I propose consolidating these into a much smaller number. On User:Jongarrettuk/Better writing guide I propose how these could be consolidated. The proposal is not to change advice, just to consolidate it. If I have inadvertently moved what you consider to be good advice that is currently in the Wikipedia namespace, please re-add it. I'm hope that the proposal to merge all these articles, in principle, will be welcomed. Of course, it may be preferred to have 2, 3 or 4 inter-connected articles than just one and would welcome advice on how this could be done. (In particular, perhaps all the guidance on layout should be spun off into one consolidated article on layout.) I'm also aware that putting lots of different bits of advice together may throw up anomalies or bits that people now disagree with (including bits that I myself disagree with:) ). I ask for support for the consolidation. Once the consolidation has happened, the advice can be changed in the normal way. Please feel free to improve on the current draft consolidation, but don't remove or add advice that is not currently on the Wikipedia namespace. If all goes well, I'll add a new Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles page on the 19th, though maybe some bits of the new article will need to be phased in over a longer period. I'll also take care to preserve all the archived discussion in one place. jguk 19:46, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to consolidate advice on writing better articles
Talk:Free-software license

message: This should be "free-software license" instead of "free software license" because "free software" is a compound modifier to the noun "license" in the English language. "free software license" refers to a software license that is free, whereas "free-software license" refers to a license for a type of software (free software). Additional confusion arises when discussing paid free-software licenses, and free free-software licenses ("paid free software licenses" and "free free software licenses" are particularly-confusing phrases). LordOfPens (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the complementary discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_209#Hyphenation_should_not_be_prescriptive LordOfPens (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing punctuation 

message: I've been improving open-source license and as a result took a look at this article. I sort of get why free software and open-source software/open source could be different articles, but I'm not so clear on why this article is separate. Additionally, large sections of this article lack sources and there are statements that appear-to my knowledge-false. What is the goal of this article as distinct from the OSL page? Rjjiii (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open-source license
Talk:Alfred the Great

message: The section on Viking invasions has Alfred fighting alongside his brother against the Great Heathen Army and is written as if it is established historical fact that the Army was led by the sons of Ragnar Lodbrok, including Ivar and Ubba. However, the main article on the Great Heathen Army states "Later legend has it that the force was led by three of the five sons of Ragnar Lodbrok, including Halfdan Ragnarsson, Ivar the Boneless and Ubba, but this has no credible basis in contemporary sources." Note that other related articles such as the Battle of Edington have similar issues. 
Should these articles be reconciled to provide a consistent stance on the historicity or otherwise of the sons of Ragnar?
Czetie (talk) 12:15, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The leadership by the three brothers is accepted in academic histories. Note c of the Great Heathen Army article says that it is Norse sagas about them that are considered legendary. I have corrected the misleading statement in the lead to the army article. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:17, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Heathen Army and historicity 

message: I am seriously considering changing his title to "King of the English". Him not ruling over all of present-day England does not mean he still wasn't King of Enland back then. This is reflected in the list of English monarchs page, where he is listed. The Vikings took back Northumbria during the reign of Edmund but that doesn't mean he still wasn't King of England. Moreso, I've seen a number of coins of Alfred with the title "Rex Anglo" on them and "Rex Anglorum" also appears on charters during his reign as well. The Royal Mint, the oldest company in the UK, was actually established the same year that Alfred took back London in 886 and considers him, along with the The Royal Family website, an English king. Faren29 (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any evidence of this claim? The Banner talk 14:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: A souvenir of the "Two Emperors" penny clearly shows "Rex Anglo". Furthermore, the Royal Family website has a list of all the English monarchs and that list begins with Alfred. Faren29 (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  King of the English
Talk:Human sexual activity

message: Hey I am trying to edit this page as in the first line there is “add my snap” slipped in by some spammer. I tried making an account to edit the page but I’m locked from it. Could someone please fix this? Thanks Stalwars101 (talk) 02:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: . Thank you for pointing it out. Cheers, gnu57 02:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add my snap spam 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Sexual activity and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at  until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sexual activity" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: have any of you ever considered that some of the content in this article might be offensive to some people? CalfRaiser150 (talk) 11:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the notice at the top of this page entitld "Wikipedia is not censored." Meters (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay thanks for showing me this. I personally find it very offensive. CalfRaiser150 (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Offensive content  

message: 178.52.109.77 (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP (talk • contribs) 21:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2024
Talk:Norman Granz

message: Gianfranco, you might want to tone it down a little, and if you can find other (important) people like those that he worked with to attribute the claims of his significance to.  See the section in neutral point of view on artistic works.  In this person's case, the roster of the people he worked with should be able to speak for themselves.
:You are right, Robert, but what I found on the net is only an amount of enthusiast celebrating quotes, perhaps even more emphatic than my text (this  is the average tone I read), and effectively there isn't any opposing view (or I wasn't able to find it), so I couldn't balance it. I thought that it wasn't appropriated to add only celebrative quotes (the ones available - I have some jazz magazines here that really worship this man, I concluded it was better not to consider these).
:Music, and its special genres in particular, are always described alternatively with (sometimes religious) passion or with derogatory definitions, it is difficult to find an equilibre. And I admit that, having been a musician myself, I can easily fell into the same manicheim.
:However, I think it is true and not discussed that most of the jazz we are able to listen today depends on Granz's work. I actually am convinced that he really was a deeply important figure and this might be a not neutral start, but with extreme honesty, how else could we describe his role in music? :-)
:Vicky, sincere regrets for Usa / USA ! --Gianfranco
212.242.173.165 (talk) 05:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Hello. 
212.242.173.165 (talk) 12:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to comments by SarekOfVulcan. 

message: Hello Jeff. Thank you for the message! As I have done in the past, I'll continue to do my best to present just the facts. Best, Niels Ervill.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.242.173.165 (talk) 06:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to comments by Jeff G.