lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Zastava M85

message: If it uses rifle ammunition, wouldn't it be considered a carbine? 68.110.28.39 09:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Submachine Gun?

message: I made an edit about this topic in which I added some things, corrected some incorrect stuff and by that, improved the text about the topic in general. But, my edition which is many better than the current (or previous one) by facts that it is had double more info that current which is poor, is by some reason removed without any stated reasons. The current text is poor, more than half of the things are missing (it actually has a few words, nothing more), it doesn't explain anything and some things are incorrect.
As an example, the stated effective range of 150m is awfully wrong. The Zastava M92 which uses 7.62x39mm caliber which due to bigger recoil and lesser muzzle velocity has a smaller effective range of 200m, so how can the 5.56x45mm caliber which the Zastava M85 use have the smaller effective range? Also, comparing the effective range of original rifles, the Zastava M70 and Zastava M90, the M70 has due to using 7.62x39mm caliber a smaller effective range of 300m, compared to M90 which has of 500m due to using a smaller 5.56x45mm caliber with reduced recoil and increased muzzle velocity, so how can the M85 have a smaller effective range than M92?
The stated magazine capacity of only 20 rounds is also silly. Both M90 and M85 rifles have 5,56x45mm 30 rounds magazine, similar to the NATO STANAG one. Nowhere is also mentioned from which rifle the M85 is a derivate, or on which it is based on, and the best part is that I added all those things, but as I've already stated, due to nothing my edition is removed and replaced by old, which is worse.
So, this can give me right to remove any other text without explanation, no matter is the text good or bad, so that would be right?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.141.127 (talk) 11:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is my edit for the topic removed?

message: I removed the mention of the AKMSU from the page, in the sentence where it was stated that the M85 incorporated design elements from it and the AKS-74U. The AKMSU's existence is highly disputed and it is logically a near impossibility for Zastava to have (intentionally) based their weapon or a component/layout of it on such a possibly nonexistent weapon. I imagine this phrase could be re-added with AKM replacing AKMSU if there are indeed design elements of the M85 inherited from the AKM's generation that weren't passed to it by way of the M70 and M80. 66.56.246.103 (talk) 23:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: AKMSU
Talk:Krupp K5

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: it appears that the gun could only be fired directly along the axis of the carriage - ie could not be rotated relative to the carriage.  To align the gun, either a suitably pointing railway track would have to be found, or a special piece of track built to allow the gun to be traversed.  Some descriptions imply that a circular piece of track could be formed with a jacked bearing at the centre.  Any Comments?Engineman (talk)
*That or I've seen a second configuration (the Trumpeter K5 Leopold model) where it would be set on a cross-shaped section of track and trained by having the front car turned sideways and moved up and down the perpendicular track. The jacked bearing version is shown on that kit's box. You're right in thinking the K5 gun is fixed, though. Herr Gruber (talk) 10:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: alignment

message: Editors working on this article could find this article to be of interest: South Africa Military History Society Farawayman (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional information

message: The article discusses the gun's testing in "Darlowo" and "Further Pomerania"; Darlowo is a Polish name only applied after the territory had been annexed by Poland after 1945. Using the German Rügenwalde  and Pommern or simply Pomerania would be much more logical; certainly no inhabitant of the town at the time had any idea that he or she lived in someplace called "Darlowo".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.139.230.252 (talk) 08:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Anachronism

message: These railguns were supported by specialised trains that included a narrow gauge railway with trucks to move ammunition, each truck carrying 1 shell and 3 bags of propellant, and a brass case.   The trains also included anti-aircraft wagon(s), flatbeds for supporting vehicles, kitchen car, etc.  I came to this article to learn more about the train layout and organisation.   But this article is missing all of this kind of information.  FreeFlow99 (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trains
Talk:William Barker (prospector)

message: I added to this and when I saved it, the categories, external links, notes and references disappeared, but are still in the edit page. I have the help desk on it.CindyBo 05:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It just needed the open <ref> tag to be closed.--Alf melmac 05:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  missing info 

message: I need to know the date, time, and not just the year!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.12.120 (talk) 23:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Billy Barker_
Talk:Joseph Despard Pemberton

message: See note at Talk:Edward Gibbon Wakefield.  If the Wakefield article has some reference added on Wakefield's colonization theories, it might be worth adding a link to it in the Pemberton article but what is there now would not be a useful reference here. KenWalker | Talk 23:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wakefieldian Colonization Theories 

message: Perhaps Pemberton worked with Richard Moody on the mainland surveys?  --KenWalker | Talk 02:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Surveyors General in BC
Talk:Rheinmetall 20 mm Twin Anti-Aircraft Cannon

message: For noting, the content of this article ahs been merged into the exiting wikiarticle about the Rh 202 earlier in 2014; however the editor didn't leave a courtesy note in either article's "Talk Page". Regards, DPdH (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged into "Rheinmetall Rh 202"
Talk:Pictorial map

message: November 11th 2006: I have just created this page on Pictorial maps.  Hoping to get feed back on it.JLR-mapman 10:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  new page for lovers of pictorial maps 
Talk:G7a torpedo

message: Most sources that I've seen say that the G7a had a single, six-bladed propeller, not the two-bladed contrarotating propellers of the G7e.209.244.31.35 (talk) 05:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the one in the photo that now serves to illustrate the article sure as hell looks like it has a six-bladed propeller. It most certainly does not have either two two-bladed propellers or two four-bladed propellers. Perhaps the design changed over time.--172.190.136.174 (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propeller 

message: Hi, does anybody knows why the existing Category:World War II German torpedoes (which aimed to group all torpedoes designed / built / used by Germany) is now missing?  Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 03:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category missing for "German Torpedoes"... 

message: Please state when the G7a was introduced. 
I cannot find this info in the list of German torpedoes or in other related articles. GilesW (talk) 11:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of introduction 

message: What was the poundage of the explosion? This may be valueable information for some.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.123.31.144 (talk) 21:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charge? 

message: The non www sources I know, don't know about any Hexanite or Decaline. The German Torpedoes were loadet whith Schießbaumwolle 36 and fueled whith Kerosene (E. Rössler: Die Torpedos der deutschen U-Boote, Hamburg, Berlin, Bonn 2005).--WerWil (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Explosive/Fuel
Talk:Lorraine Day

message: I edited to add a citation to a death announcement. 76.9.226.31 (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death 

message: It is a fact that this is true, as cited by her own website. She had been on Red Ice Creations radio talking about it. They are a far right neo nazi radio podcast. She has books on this stuff. Please stop removing this information. Vadeshex (talk) 06:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Material on drday.com? is reliable/due? I think not. Bon courage (talk) 06:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It is only reliable insofar as it is something she wrote about what she believes in. I'll agree that her science is unreliable but this proves the paragraph I added. It is in her own words that she is a holocaust denier and supporter of Ernst Zundel. Vadeshex (talk) 06:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holocaust Denier and Supporter of Neo Nazi Ernst Zundel
Talk:Zielgerät 1229

message: "Vampir gear was first used in combat in February 1945." 
What is the source of this information? I have never seen any written source about use of it.
"310 units were delivered to the Wehrmacht at the final stages of the war."
Again - what is the source?
"Eastern Front veteran reports consist of snipers shooting at night with the aid of 'peculiar non-shining torches coupled with enormous optical sights' mounted on their rifles." 
Any written statements? Where to find them?
"Similar infrared gear was fitted both to MG34 and MG42 machine guns."
Never heard of.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.184.247.69 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 14 November 2007‎ (UTC)
:Well, study a few before make observations.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.53.224.252 (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Vampir 

message: "peculiar non-shining torches coupled with enormous optical sights". What?
If you're going to look in the book for something and take the time to quote, why not give the source?
--Obamaspam (talk) 16:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source? 

message: The article hasn't any photos, but these sites  and  have photos of this device. Agre22 (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos

message: Is there any information that can be added on how the image converter part worked and what quality of image it was capable of? --DanielRigal (talk) 19:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image converter
Talk:BL 6-inch 26 cwt howitzer

message: According to AGL MacNaughton's article in the Canadian Defence Quarterly, Jan 1929, 6 in How in WW1 max rg was 9500.  Gen McN was a gnr and an engineer and if he says 9500 then I'd believe it.  It's easy enough to check there are quite a lot of RTs around.  IV Hogg in Allied Arty of WW1 also gives 9500.
The ammo expenditure total actually comes from Farndale Annex B. (actually he says "Approx expenditure in France & Belgium", 22387363 for this gun.  Not what I'd call approximate!  The figure seems to have come from a presentation chart probably produced in the 1920s, my copy doesn't give any details about origin, etc.
6 in How was the most widely used gun by RGA in WW1, about 50% of their total.
A qty of these guns were delivered to Russia in 1917.Nfe 03:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Vallate papilla

message: "The circumvallate papillae (or vallate papillae) are of large size, and vary from eight to twelve in number."  However, on tastebud, it says that there are 3-14. Mike6271 23:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How Many?

message: Hello. 
I am a member of WikiProject Anatomy, a Wikipedia wide project that maintains and improves articles that fall under the scope of anatomy. Since your article has fallen under our scope, I have placed the correct templates on this talk page for verification. Upon review of this article, I'd like to make a few points, as shown:
*Assess articles with class and importance factors
I'm glad this article could fall within our scope, and I hope to see it grow large! Many thanks! Renaissancee (talk) 03:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Assessment for [[WP:ANATOMY|WikiProject Anatomy]]
Talk:BL 60-pounder gun

message: Trials of the original 1904 design revealed the need for a lot of modifications.  60 pr seems to have had a very advanced design for the time.  The original limber was designed for towing by horse, oxen or vehicle.
However, production was very slow and the design was not accepted by India (or more accurately the British artillery officers in India).  In 1914 only the 1 - 6 Divs had been equipped (one heavy bty of 4 guns per division), the rest still had 4.7inch guns.
By Nov 1918 total btys were: UK - nil, BEF - 74, Italy - 3, Macedonia - 11, Palestine - 7, Mesopotamia - 4.  In addition Canada had 2 btys in France, the only imperial forces using them.
Referring to 60pr as the backbone of medium artillery entirely misses the point.  The term 'medium' wasn't generally used, 60pr were in 'heavy' batteries (as were 4.7in), 6 inch How were in siege batteris and they were by far the most numerous 'medium' guns.Nfe (talk) 09:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that Nigel. I've updated the page accordingly, please correct it if necessary. It can be a bit confusing when the photo of the 60 pounder in General Farndale's RA History of the Western Front reads : "It was redesigned during the war, but remained the standard medium gun throughout". Maybe he didn't write the caption, as elsewhere he uses the official WWI "heavy" designation. Technically the 60 pounder would appear to be a medium gun, fitting between field guns and genuine heavies. I wonder whether propaganda was at work in WWI - with the British having to cover up their lack of heavy artillery by calling mediums heavies and heavies siege artillery ? Or was it a result of their military doctrine as having different roots than that of the European powers ? Rcbutcher (talk) 11:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

message: I came across another surviving example of this gun in Veterans Memorial Park, Clarion, PA. Thetrojancow (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another surviving example
Talk:BL 4.5-inch medium field gun

message: Photo in upper right hand corner of article taken in Portugal is of a BL 5.5 inch gun/howitzer, not of the 4.5 inch gun, which was not used by the Portuguese. The weapon is identifiable as a 5.5 inch by its shorter, thicker ordnance. That of the 4.5 inch gun was longer and more slender in appearance.SASH155 (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out. I've replaced it with an image of undisputed identification from IWM Duxford. Rcbutcher (talk) 13:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Talk:BL 8-inch howitzer Mk VI – VIII

message: The info I have about the version supplied to Finland is that it was the US-built version of the Vickers Mark 6, with the original short barrel. Why is the photo labelled Mk 7 ? Rcbutcher 05:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the info.. Finnish sources have described it as 8 howitzer Mk 7 (Vickers Mk 6). The short appearance of the barrel to me looks like a Mk 6, unless there is another reason for this appearance. The Mk 7 and 8 barrels were much longer, looked more like gun barrels. Could there be some other meaning to the Mk VII stamp ? Rcbutcher 02:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The figure of 32 to Russia is the same number as apparently obtained by Finland. Is it the same order, ? I can't see the US supplying them to the Bolsheviks. Could these in fact be the 32 that went to Finland, consisting of 8 Mk 6 & 24 Mk 7 ? Rcbutcher 06:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've updated the page with the info you gave above - would you care to review it ? Rcbutcher (talk) 10:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your comments Nigel. I've updated numbers at the Armistice and removed the stuff about subsequent British 8 inch guns (somebody else put it there) as it isn't really relevant to the article and could take on a life of its own. I don't know much post-1920 so please feel free to update pages as you see fit - the transition between generations of artillery is important and requires much knowledge to adequately present it.Rcbutcher (talk) 04:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 
Talk:Richard Fairbank

message: Richard Fairbanks is also the Managing Director for Domestic and International Issues for the Council of Foreign Relations.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.179.177 (talk) 01:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yess this fits.. I wish that the people that are supporting Capital One Banking would get some support sometimes..I have been with Capital One for years. I fell on hard times and had to spend my limit.But I can't catch up because my interest rate is extremely High.. So it hurts the customers 2600:100A:A102:9E9E:3517:16D1:5645:F315 (talk) 00:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Talk:Framing device

message: This doesn't seem to display much grasp of the subject. Could anything here be merged into frame story to the betterment of that article? --Wetman 10:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be a merge of any unique content into frame story, with a redirect of framing device to frame story.  It should be noted that, until I looked it up on Wikipedia, I had never heard of a "frame story", yet I understood that concept under the term "framing device".  Google Fight has about twice the hits for "framing device" as for "frame story".  (That's an exact phrase search with quotes, BTW.) --205.201.141.146 19:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge?
Talk:Military career of Ali

message: Good initiative :) --Striver 10:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good

message: This should definately be merged with the original article, I don't think it's even referenced in that article. --User:HusaynIbnAli 9:56 PM, March 17 2007 (Sydney GMT +10)
:I support a merge as well.  There's no reason to have two articles on the same person. MezzoMezzo 19:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reveted to the last situation because the main article is long and need some sub-articles.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 09:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering about your re-creation of the 'Ali the Warrior article, I originally merged it because I thought it was redundant to have two articles on one person. MezzoMezzo 09:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's usual. Please pay attention to Muhammad article to find how many sub-articles it has. When an article is going to become long we move some parts to the sub-articles. In this case Ali article is 56 kb and it's growing gradually. So I decided to make some sub-articles for it. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 23:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I see your reasoning here.  Actually, this could lead to the creation of a template for 'Ali's life as well, in which case I think it would be helpful for readers.  Let me know if you need any help with that. MezzoMezzo 03:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean template:Ali, I made it before.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 09:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merged

message: I was the one who provided all the information in this article, regarding the battles, and seeing as how there have been no disputes regarding the information I added regarding Badr and Uhud, I will expand Trench and Khaybar in similar fashion soon. HusaynIbnAli 11:24 12 June 2008 (UTC)
:I would certainly encourage you to add content obtained from academic reliable sources, but it must be in your own words, must conform to neutral viewpoint policy, and must possess no original research. Big blocks of quotes are unencyclopedic and not a way an article should be expanded. Regards, ITAQALLAH 14:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion

message: I propose we change the name to "Ali as a soldier" or "Ali's military activities".Bless sins (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change 
Talk:Monument of Liberty

message: I haven't nominated this for deletion, as it possibly could be a sueful disambiguation page. I added dab links to most of the items listed on it, and most were immediately removed from both the pages themselves and from this disambiguation page, suggesting that "Monument of Liberty" is not in itself a useful disambiguation term. However, there are indeed several freedom/liberty monuments in the world, and a category might be a more appropriate way to organize them.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 10:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, a category would be the appropriate method, but I doubt even that is necessary. Station1 (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Should this exist at all?
Talk:Blacker Bombard

message: Bombard pedistals survive in comparatively large numbers and are a feature of the British countryside. They are one of the more common present-day survivors of the 1940 anti-invasion preparations. Therefore I feel a pictures of one in use and a surviving Bombard emplacement are justified. Catsmeat (talk) 10:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The picture is fine, a good find. But please don't add uncited information to articles; if you can find a reliable source for the information, then please re-add the information with the citation. Skinny87 (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Catsmeat (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Inserted Images of Concrete Pedistals

message: A scan of the user manual for this weapon can be found online and it gives a different total weight to that given in the article for the portable version of the gadget. The difference I think is the mounting tools. I've amended to reflect that weight, because I guess it's not really portable at the lower weight if you can only get there without the tool kit.Tirailleur (talk) 09:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  a minor edit
Talk:Besa machine gun

message: I have seen both. I assume that the name came from people trying to pronounce "BSA" out loud, but it's not strictly speaking an acronym because the extra "E" isn't present anywhere in Birmingham Small Arms. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 12:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Pre- and post-war BSA motorcycles were invariably known to aficionados as Beezers which is how 'BESA' is pronounced.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.68 (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: BESA or Besa?