lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:List of paramilitary groups

message: This list seems to conflate List of terrorist groups/List of active rebel groups to paramilitaries (As being unofficially state sanctioned). If groups feature on both then clearly the lists should be merged because it serves no pointLihaas (talk) 07:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paramilitary or terror groups? 

message: This list lacks any credibility without about a thousand American Christian Terrorist "mulhishuh" groups. 
I personally have received threats from such groups, and have handled for renumeration such threats against various Liberal groups over the past twenty years.  One group even was busted with enough cyanide to kill a quarter million people, yet made threats against a Democrat forum owner I know. These are happening every day of the week thousands of times a day with the threats, and many who keep their promises. 
This page has zero credibility. And no offense, seeing the kind of attempt being made here to pretend a huge problem doesn't exist, don't expect me to tell you which of your friends we know about. I'm not sharing intel here when so many of these groups are prepping for a civil war, that information is privately catalogued, with full evidence. 74.120.133.105 (talk) 09:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I know this is years later, but for the record, credibility in the guise of completeness of coverage is not a criteria at Wikipedia. Anyone is free to fill in the blanks who can supply material backed by a sufficiently robust citation. This doesn't entirely moot the credibility problem, as there is legitimate scope for debate on what constitutes a sufficiently robust citation; that's where this argument needs to go if you wish to lean on credibility. — MaxEnt 20:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete lack of American Christian Terrorist Militias 

message: This page would be more useful if each group was associated with a geographical/political territory of primary operation.
On superficial inspection, the Grey Wolves (no further descriptive text) could be based anywhere in the Anglosphere—no, wait, it's actually based in Turkey. — MaxEnt 19:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geographical and political base of operations
Talk:Omnibus (American TV program)

message: I think this show won Emmies. Anybody know? 58.168.1.5 (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Emmy Awards?

message: A Gore Vidal template was added in External Links, in an edit 14 July 2014.  There is no mention of or reference to Gore Vidal in the article, either in the July 2014 version or in the August 2020 version.  I am removing the Gore Vidal template. JohnBuska (talk) 19:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spurious Gore Vidal reference 

message: Not all of the 152 episodes of Omnibus dealt with the arts. Consider "The Automatic Pinspotter" | Omnibus With Alistair Cooke. David Spector (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Programming: Not just the arts!
Talk:Elizabeth DePoy

message: I have paid attention to all the guidelines and suggestions for improvement noted in the history of this article.  I believe i have addressed them all and now hope that the viewers of this page find a well cited and informative article.--BJ Kitchin 17:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:1953 Formula One season

message: :File:Alberto Ascari.jpg is non-free and has been identified as possibly not being in compliance with the non-free content policy. For specific information on the problems with the file and how they can be fixed, please check the message at :File:Alberto Ascari.jpg. For further questions and comments, please use the non-free content review page. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 16:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-free file problems with [[:File:Alberto Ascari.jpg]]

message: See my comments in Talk:1952 Formula One season. Can anyone provide a citation for: "As in 1952, the FIA chose to limit all Grand Prix races counting towards the World Championship of Drivers to cars complying with Formula Two regulations rather than with Formula One." In the early years of the World Championship, the race organisers, not the FIA, chose which regulations to follow, and the FIA chose races to include in the championship. A7V2 (talk) 04:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  First paragraph
Talk:1954 Formula One season

message: There is no mention of him in the 9th race, the Spanish Grand Prix, even though this page says he participated in that race. Can someone please check? Gbawden (talk) 06:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I've seen, it looks like he was on the entry list as a reserve driver for Ken Wharton's car, but he clearly took no part in the race proper. Readro (talk) 10:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Guerino Bertocchi

message: I've removed the Sachsenring race as it was purely a Formula 2 race. If we allow it to stand we'd then have to allow other F2 events such as the entries here: 1954 Formula 2 Events. Grand Prix des Frontières is allowed as it was a mixed F1/F2 event. Downside of this is that every driver who competed in 1954 will have a permanent red link in their table of NC races. Halmyre (talk) 11:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-Championship Races
Talk:Northern New Jersey Council

message: Merge Scouting in New Jersey#Northern New Jersey Council and Camp No-Be-Bos-Co‎ to form the full council article. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge 

message: Are the No-Be themes notable enough to take up so much of the article?  GoingBatty (talk) 00:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No. There is quite a bit of cruft here. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 02:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed the whole Themes section.  What else should go?  Campfires?  GoingBatty (talk) 02:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Should the majority of the NoBe section be moved to it's own article? The camp is the main focus of the NNJC article and should not be Joemertens (talk) 04:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the above discussion, the camp article was merged to form the council article per the Scouting project guidelines. Please expand the council information and trim the camp cruft. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 04:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are No-Be themes notable? 

message: Propose to merge No-Be-Bo-Sco here. Much of the content already exists. Camps are not separate entities and generally do not meet notability guidelines. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 09:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  No-Be-Bo-Sco 

message: Betsy_Palmer says this.Z75SG61Ilunqpdb (talk) 22:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  No-Be-Bo-Sco = North Bergen Boy Scout ?
Talk:1955 Formula One season

message: Did the championship actually go to the final round?  The report for the British Grand Prix says that Fangio clinched there, and the math seems to support that. Camcurwood (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: At the conclusion of the British GP, there were still 4 rounds to go in the championship (the German, Swiss, Italian and Spanish GPs) so the championship was still open. Between the running of the British and Italian GPs, the German, Swiss and Spanish races were cancelled (in the wake of the 1955 Le Mans disaster), which meant that by the time the teams arrived in Italy, the championship was decided in Fangio's favour. I have removed the statement about Fangio clinching the championship from the British GP report. DH85868993 (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Final round?
Talk:1956 Formula One season

message: Going into the last race, Fangio had 30 points, Behra and Collins each had 22. The maximum points on offer were 9, for winning plus setting fastest lap. But Behra could not win the title - he'd already scored 5 times during the season and since a driver could only count their best 5 scores, even if he scored 9 points at this race, he would have to drop 4 points scored earlier in the season, giving him a maximum total of 27. Collins, however, had only scored 4 times, so if he scored 9 points at this race, he could keep them all, meaning he could surpass Fangio's total if Fangio scored no points. But I think it's still worth mentioning Behra, in case readers who are aware of the fact that he and Collins were level on points going into the final race wonder why he isn't mentioned but Collins is. DH85868993 (talk) 06:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title contenders at the last race
Talk:1959 Formula One season

message: The statement "Vanwall's withdrawal, believed to have been a result of the high mortality rate of the 1958 season" should have a citation.  It is speculative and not fully supported by other sources.  For example, in his book "Vanwall Green for Glory", Ed McDonough states that Vandervell's health was a significant factor.
The first sentence of the "Season Summary" section refers to the 1958 season, but appears to ignore its results.  It states that Ferrari was "the only race-winning team in the Championship", but two of the 1958 races were won by Coopers entered by the R. R. C. Walker Racing Team which continued to compete (and win races) in 1959.  This is just sloppy and, along with poor writing in later sections, justifies the "Start-Class" rating.
Bill321 (talk) 22:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season Summary?
Talk:1960 Formula One season

message: Is it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.196.101 (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: In August 2017, it was proposed that this article be renamed to "1960 World Championship of Drivers", with the non-championship information transferred to a new article named "1960 in Formula One". But consensus for the change was not achieved. DH85868993 (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it really accurate to call the page the page for the 1960 Formula One season if Indianapolis was not a Formula One race?
Wikipedia talk:Search for vandalism

message: I've been doing this quite a bit recently and found a lot of vandalism on school articles - too much for me to go through by myself.  The idea is that we create a list of search terms that shouldn't really appear in an encylopaedia and periodically go through them.  violet/riga (t) 22:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasoning

message: I'm wondering how many hits we would get with "it is rumoured" (and variations) - unsourced rumours should be removed in many situations.  violet/riga (t) 10:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rumours
Talk:Virtual machine lifecycle management

message: I added a reference example using the Wikipedia:Footnotes reference system, which is quite common.  You might prefer the cite.php style.  There are links to that alternative in the Footnote article.  My convention for the order of title, author, etc. was arbitrary, I suggest you choose your own convention.  MaxEnt (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference example
Talk:Battle of the Wilderness order of battle: Union

message: This article is a nice list. Unfortunately it misses notes and references (where did you take the data?). A link at the bottom is not enough. If suitable references are added, this can be moved to B-class. --gala.martin  <Small>(what?)</Small> 22:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

message: I noticed my red links were deleted for no reason so I thought I'd explain. Col. Paul A. Frank is notable: a bvt brig. general after the war, a division commander briefly during the Bristoe Campaign, and in many accounts of battles he's the 'weak link'  - he was known to drink so other generals plan around Frank's unit not doing what it was supposed to and afterwards they blame his unit for various failures which eventually led him to be relieved during the Battle for Spotsylvania Court House. Kirk (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: cleaned up my comment, but even more interestingly all the officers who were going to try him in his court martial were killed the day after he was relieved of command, so he was returned to duty (presumably as Col. of the 52nd) and was honorably discharged in October. Kirk (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Col. Frank
Talk:1970 Formula One season

message: why is Jackie Stewart in 5th and Jack Brabham in 6th? They had one win each and 25 points each. Shouldn't they be tied for 5th, with the next person in 7th? versen (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The countback continues until the two drivers can be separated. Therefore Stewart's results of 1x1st,2x2nd,1x3rd,1x9th give him 5th place ahead of Brabham who had 1x1st,2x2nd,1x3rd,1x10th,1x11th,1x13th. DH85868993 (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 5th place

message: I've added the Review template to the Season Report. Although it's quite an interesting read, it's not really written in an encyclopaedic tone. I can that very susbtantial edits were made on 13 August 2015 by User:38.96.178.34, which I think actually removed some older, more balanced edits and references as well. I'm going to do some editing to this section to try and improve it.Seaweed (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-neutral tone of Season Report 

message: Jack Brabham was leading at the start, and he ran out of fuel at the start – and Rindt overtook him and won his 3rd consecutive race.
Looks wrong. Davidships (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: And is wrong! Brabham ran out of fuel at the last bend. Fixed. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  British GP 

message: Noticed that in the results/standings section, Rindt had a footnote about his death mid-season and Courage had a dagger that I assume was supposed to denote his death as well. How are mid-season fatalities to be treated in this area? Bruce McLaren was also killed mid-season but not at an F1 race. Should he also have a footnote? Whatisdeletrazdoing (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we should be denoting fatalities in the results matrix at all. The fact that died doesn't have any direct impact on the Championship (and the only indirect impact is that they can't compete in future races), so it doesn't make sense to notate deaths in the Championship standings table. Let the prose explain why they didn't compete in the final races of the season. Also note, that this is one of the few articles where we notate deaths in the results table, see 2014 Formula One World Championship (there is a dagger, but it denotes something else.  SSSB (talk) 19:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Fatalities
Talk:1975 Formula One season

message: I noticed that Maki withdrew from these two races as classified from the constructors' table. But, the driver who was supposed to be driving, either Tony Trimmer or Hiroshi Fushida (most likely Hiroshi but not marked in the entrants table), is not marked in the drivers standings. Shouldn't Hiroshi be marked as WD for these two races? 
FORMULA1FAN71 (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maki Engineering WD at Belgium and Sweden?
Talk:1976 Formula One season

message: The appeal against Hunt's win was not over his use of a spare car, it was because he didn't complete the full lap after the initial crash on lap one. He drove back to the pits via a service road. For this reason he was later disqualified.Statto74 (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The entry for the Italian GP is a bit lacking too.  Mass, Hunt and Watson had their practice times from the Saturday at Monza disallowed because, allegedly, their fuel had too high an octane rating.  [Ferrari-inspired conspiracy theory goes here]. This would have put them out of the race altogether, having not been fast enough during the Friday sessions, but Guy Edwards and Arturo Merzario withdrew from the race in order to allow two of the three back in, while Otto Stuppacher had already gone home, believing that he'd failed to qualify.  Albeit that one account I've read had it that Stuppacher wasn’t going to be allowed to start anyway due to his lack of 1: speed and b) experience. Mr Larrington (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Race 9

message: There is a discussion in progress regarding which driver should be credited with fastest lap at the 1976 Japanese Grand Prix. Interested editors are invited to participate in the discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 06:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fastest lap at the 1976 Japanese Grand Prix 

message: 215mm maximum width is 21.5cm or 0.2m.
This is clearly too small for a human so cannot be correct, but i can't find what it should be. 82.8.181.87 (talk) 08:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an error in the reference. The maximum width was 215 cm (= 2.15 m). Thanks for highlighting the error. DH85868993 (talk) 05:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  215mm width is clearly wrong
Talk:List of tallest buildings in Jersey City

message: http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2017/08/jersey_city_skyline_reaching_for_the_stars.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.93.254.14 (talk) 03:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to early buidings
Talk:Chabad related controversies

message: As noted on the Controversies of Chabad page, "related-controversies" is a much more POV and general term and follows the protocol of creating controversy sections for other religious groups and subgroups, and many other organisations. Mormons, Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Scientology and so on and so forth.
It might be seen best in future to subdivide this article and create  separate pages and put them in a category and hotlinks in the chabad template, but for the time being we must collate all the considerable chabad controversy info that has been on wikipedias pages into this article.
I have taken the version of the Controversies of Chabad page with the most data and moved it here. Most of that info has been lost to the current article due to severe neglect.
Chabad is an organisation with headquarters in New York and perhaps 5-10,000 affiliated rabbis and their wives spread around the world. 
This article must deal with all controversy surrounding chabad and its rabbinical and lay staff as well as the actions of prominent chabad individuals who succeed in getting press for actions in the public-religious sphere. It should not include controversies pertaining to private chabad individuals who are involved in controversies that bear no relation to Chabad.Lobojo (talk) 23:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have taken the most extensive version of the old page and added all the information from the November 18 2007 page that was not on that page. The objection that the local controversies are not "Controversies of Chabad" is moot under the heading of "Chabad related controversies" which is protocol anyhow.Lobojo (talk) 23:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Work in progress
Talk:Teste

message: *  teste 
*  wiktionary : teste 
*  wiktionary : testee 
*  testee 
*  category_talk:redirects_to_Wiktionary 
Thank You,
 hopiakuta  Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message.  %7e%7e   Thank You. - 22:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need [[ disambiguation]]:
Talk:Roy Tackett

message: Tackett is not in the Science Fiction Hall of Fame so I deleted that, of course. I marked {dead} one reference that may be our source of error on the point.
I deleted mention of Tackett as a science fiction writer (or allusion?) in calling Vardeman and Speer each a fellow writer. What writings by Tackett constitute the special volume created in his honor (1997 Worldcon Guest of Honor) needs explanation here because our bibliographic Ext link ISFDB does not credit him with any science fiction (only with Letters/Essays and a Review) and we provide no Ref that does so. 
Offhand I guess the main points are whether he wrote science fiction, or only wrote about it (as critic and/or fan); whether any such writings were published only his fan magazine or elsewhere; and the nature of ISFDB's mistake, if any (for example, he published under another name).
--P64 (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Writer
Talk:Underway replenishment

message: I disagree with merging these two articles . This is a fairly decent for small size articile at moment. 
A good next step here woudl be specific informaiton on equipment and the rigs. 
The replenishment oiler article has a below average rating in my opinion. It refers to some decommissioned classes of ships, lack specifics on distinction of replenishment oilers to tankers. 
Wfoj2 (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment - I think this article about the technique should include sections about the ships.  I would see replenishment oiler as a section of this article, just as you could have ammunition ships, dry stores ships, and combination vessels like the fast combat support ships.  Broad enough to be international, of course.  I just don't see enough justification for an article for each type of vessel, especially when the unrep oiler article is so spotty.  If the sections get big and developed enough they could be split. --Pesco (talk) 12:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging with Replenishment Oiler article 

message: It looks like these are two different subjects. The Ship to Ship article isn't very descriptive, but it seems to say that the two ships moor to one another before cargo transfer takes place. That's not what military UNREP is, or is about. Lou Sander (talk) 00:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm gonna say Oppose too, the guy who suggested it hasn't even given a rationale. Ryan4314  (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging with Ship to Ship Cargo Transfer Article 

message: Is there such a thing as horizontal replenishment, and should it point here?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.162.84 (talk) 01:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other terms
Template talk:PDB link

message: I tried to switch this to another PDB portal, PDBsum. It seems to be better, especially for enzymes, because this database also shows chemical reactions and usually provides brief abstract. It better shows ligands and polypeptide chains. If you click subunits (e.g. A 373 a.a.), it gives nice picture with secondary structure and aa sequence.Biophys (talk) 23:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

message: The official website has lots of links in any case. See my discussion on Template talk:PDB.
Also, should I write a bot to update all instances of 'Template:PDB link' to 'Template:PDB' (or vice-vers)? Seems we don't need two templates to do the same job... I can script the bot, but who do I need to talk to about getting a bot account and running it? --Dan|(talk) 10:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which template is used most? --Dan|(talk) 10:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  To resurrect this old debate,  is used far more. We could either replace all instances of  with , or summarise multiple s with a multiple-accession  and delete this template. Alternatively,  could just be converted to a transclusion of . T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 04:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't like the arbitrary use of an unofficial PDB website.
Talk:Anjay Ajodha

message: : Could use some more Google-ing and adding and referencing thereafter. VigilancePrime (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is definitely the most detailed Kid Nation kid article. I don't think it should be deleted. DancingWithTheStarsGuy (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand away
Talk:Leavin' on Your Mind

message: Wasn't this song co-written by Webb Pierce? - 4.240.159.120 (talk) 11:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Webb Pierce