lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Orthoceratidae

message: Added because of this edit.  The article was nominated for deletion, but problems can probably be fixed by editing. snigbrook (talk) 13:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy dispute 

message: Orthoceratidae is not synonymous with Michelinoceratidae as the article suggests. Michelinoceratidae has a distinct taxonomic history is a family with subtaxa of its own. 
However, Orthoceratidae is a distinct family and synonymous with Orthocerotidae according to R. H. Flower (1962). Noles1984 (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, there should be two articles: one for Michelinoceratidae, and one for either Orthoceratidae or Orthocerotidae, although I don't know where the content of this page should be as most sources of information are not easily accessible. snigbrook (talk) 14:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute explanation

message: This page should not have been moved to Orthocerotidae.  The current familial name of this group is Orthoceratidae and as such the article should be at that name with a redirect from Orthocerotidae and prose explaining that the name was corrected by Teichert and Miller in 1939 and Flower in 1962.--Kevmin (talk) 17:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The taxon is Orthoceratidae, named by M'Coy in 1844, not Orthocerotidae as spelled by Teichert and Miller in Kindal and Miller 1939 (ref Sweet 1964. p K224 in the Treatise Part K) The article should be written under the proper spelling, Orthoceratidae. Perhaps someone can cut and paste the info from Orthocerotidae to Orhoceratidae (perhaps improved) with a new redirect. If no one does I might in the near future. J.H.McDonnell (talk) 00:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved the page per this discussion. Articles should never be simply copy-pasted as this loses the article history and thus goes against the GFDL. mgiganteus1 (talk) 01:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Wow, that was quick. Thanks mgiganteus1. I just recently opened the page Orthoceratidae expecting to find it as it had been, hoping to discern in the history the reason for the previous redirect to Orthocerotidae. Your help saved me a lot of trouble. Orthocerotidae, which does appear in the literature should of course be explained. As for saving every tit bit into antiquity or how that effects the GFDL I don't fully understand the reasoning. But well,o.k. J.H.McDonnell (talk) 17:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I forgot about the recent Wikipedia license migration from GFDL to Creative Commons! (All user-contributed text is now licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.) Although this is a free license in that the content can be reused for any purpose, the authors must still be attached to the text they wrote in some way (the "Attribution" part of the license). The history tab currently provides this attribution. If the text of an article is pasted somewhere else, the history tab will only list one author for the entirety of the text. WP:MOVE provides more information on this. Cheers, mgiganteus1 (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Name
Talk:Nitty Gritty Dirt Band

message: Why does the article say that the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band is Australian and was formed on a walkabout when all of the information in the article describing the origins of the band suggests it's American?
Psychlist (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Way after the fact, but my guess is the issue you've mentioned is vandalism. I see it has been removed as of this reading today.THX1136 (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Australian?

message: This is terrible.Theres no article for the members. user:NDRiCky28
:Guess it's up to you to carry the load - you up to it?--81.152.253.176 14:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I would think Cadillac Ranch would be one of their best know songs, but it isn't mentioned here or here. I'll have to see what I can do... --Mr Minchin  14:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cadillac Ranch 

message: Factual error here. It's located in Santa Monica, not Long Beach  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.81.27.7 (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about now, but in the 1960s and 1970s, there were two McCabe's locations, Santa Monica and Long Beach. The Nitty Gritty Dirt Band performed at the Long Beach location.Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 13:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  McCabes Guitar Shop 

message: I know I saw them on TV in the mid-1970s with a five-piece lineup that included both Jimmy Ibbotson and Jackie Clark. This lineup would fit between the 1974-75 and the 1976-77 lineups. Can anyone find any information on that?Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 13:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mid 1970s lineup 

message: Is in Santa Monica, not Long Beach as stated in the article 45.51.188.112 (talk) 09:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed it is. Corrected and wikilinked. --Muhandes (talk) 13:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you folks notice the previous mention that during the time frame McCabe's is mentioned there were actually 2 stores? I didn't notice on my quick read through today if the original info had been restored, but I would think for accuracy it should be left as it was originally stated. Thoughts? THX1136 (talk) 15:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

text: Found two sources - The Commercial Appeal (connected to USA Today) and the Press Telegram (assuming the local Long Beach paper) - that have write ups on the Dirt Band mentioning the McCabe's in Long Beach as the place for the beginnings of the group. Also found a mention on a forum about the Long Beach location mentioning it was not connected to the Santa Monica location and was owned by a Kurt Wheaton. The location closed in 1992 after 'the riots'. Don't have time to dig a bit further - I like to have at least 3 good sources - to make the change now. Hopefully get to it soon. THX1136 (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  McCabes Guitar Shop 

message: How could Jeff Hanna be a member in 1965 if the band wasn't formed til 1966? 57.140.32.38 (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Members
Talk:Alf Poier

message: Alf Poier's ego about himself is bigger than Jupiter. he's a useless troll who thinks his own jokes are funny, when they really aren't.
Absolutely. The only positive comments I've ever heard about him are ones he has written himself, posing as fans. Pssh. It's laughable that he spends his time on the internet trying to feed his ego, even though the internet already has a very low opinion of him. That's pretty much the only reason why I visit this page once every few weeks, because I know he can help himself but go back to it and changes comments and information! The moron makes it so obvious that it's him. I guess if this is some strategic plan to make himself more noticed, it works, even though it makes him look like a self-centered childish idiot, and in this way, it makes me want to set fire to any venues he visits, instead of wanting to buy tickets. Lots of love, Nitestick off the Tech-forums :)
The Alf poier that visits forums is a fan named after alf poier, not the real alf poier
Wasn't talking about TechForums, it's evident everywhere. And it's beyond my intelligence how someone could like Alf Poier enough to do that... It's also beyond my intelligence how someone could like Alf Poier, period! Haha, and who added the Nitestick bit to my last comment? I'm not Nitestick...
Nitestick added a comment on here before.
No he didn't. I had a discussion with Nitestick before about it, as this "Alf", whether he's the real one or not, seems to like forging Nitestick's name.
Well personally i think your a bit paranoid. Just because someone names themself "Alf Poier" and makes a few joke posts (and admit it, many people found it slightly amusing) doesn't mean you need to come on here trying to warn people like he has some disease. To be honest, i'd prefer someone to come to a forum and make a couple of off-topic / funny posts and get banned rather than spam adverts all over a forum. Moreover, as i said before, just because someone names their forum account after a famous person doesn't mean they are that said person. I would know, since its me. I'll also tell you that i also have another account on tech-forums myself and have helped many people with their computer problems. I guess the admin team could look at ip records etc and you might find out who i am. But even if they decide to ban me, what stops me making a new account? I have one last thing for you to consider. If someone came on the tech forums under the Alias "Bill Gates" and acted like a moron, would you go onto Bill Gates' wikipedia article and edit the information to make him out as a spammer. No? I wouldn't either :). Now let this Alf poier thing chill, rest assured i've learnt from my mistakes and i won't be doing it again.
This "discussion" seems quite unhelpful to the article and at least sign yeer posts.
Sioraf (talk) 10:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Gardianul

message: :It is one of the best known Romanian newspapers
No. It is not even among the top 10 selling newspapers. Bogdan | Talk 13:32, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Much more similar to the style, layout and feel of The Guardian is Cotidianul. Also check the websites of the The Sun vs Ziarul. :-) bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 18:07, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is the content of either the Gardianul or the Cotidianul similar to The Guardian, and is it acknowledged that the style was borrowed/inspired ? FrancisTyers 18:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Although the style is remarkably similar (the size of the paper, the font used in the title, the & character used in the heading "Comment & Analysis), but AFAIK, it is not acknowledged. The content of Cotidianul seems to me also to be quite similar to the one of The Guardian. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 20:18, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Ram bow

message: Disputed: Primarily because this article was entered by an anon on April Fools Day. The discussion about the battle of Nissa jives with Wilhelm von Tegetthoff, but I don't know if that was in fact the last time a ship was rammed.-Rholton 13:56, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
:There appears to be ample evidence on the internet to support at least the existance of the "ram bow". For example: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/design.htm
:Which one would think would be sufficient enough to remove any factual doubt.
::I can assure everyone that ram bows are real — I have removed the disputed tag and will be updating the article shortly. -Lommer | talk 22:21, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual accuracy disputed

message: "according to inscriptions found on the tomb of Phoenician King Sargon II and ramming was the dominant form of naval combat until at least the third century BC"
Sargon II, while controlling the Phoenician port cities as part of his empire, was a king of the Neo-Assyrian empire, not a Phoenician king.  Additionally, there is no way the information stated above could be from his tomb, given that he died waging war to the North and his body was never recovered.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.144.222 (talk) 23:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate Passage
Talk:Trades hall

message: Trades Hall is a general term for a hall for Trade Unions to meet. At the moment this article is specific to Melbourne Trades Hall. So, I am going to move this to Melbourne Trades Hall, and Trades Hall can become a generic article and disambiguation page.--Takver 14:22, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "The federal body is the Australian Council of Trade Unions".
I deleted the above edit, as I think it is inappropriate for the generic term, Trades Hall. The ACTU is a specific federal organisation and is not an example of a Trades Hall. --Takver 13:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The term "trades hall" is also used in the UK, there are a few examples, most notably the Glasgow Trades Hall , built 1794 as a meeting place for the city's craft guilds. I suggest the article should at least acknowledge this. Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: point taken. Have included links to Scottish and English Trades Halls - unfortunately no articles appear to be written yet for these examples - and generalised the article covering British and Australian labour movement, including adding the article to British Trade Union category I don't think the term has taken root elsewhere, but of course I might be wrong on this.--Takver (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worldwide perspective
Talk:Geography of Guatemala

message: I am also of the opinion that Kelisi's maps are preferable because they show in detail the borderlines of each region, the rivers and lakes details around the country, but i also know why people dont like these maps, is because of the type of font the user is using, and the definition of the colors, if that gets to change, i think they will love your maps Kelisi. mtmg_7x3; Sep 7, 2006;
Please bring your discussion here and do not happily engage in yet another edit war. people can already see yuor precious CIA map at Guatemala --SqueakBox 14:39, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
:For God's sake. This map is amateurish, blocky, uses garish colours, is horribly crowded and looks like it was created by a child on an 8-bit computer. How can you not see that this map, whatever detail it contains is vastly inferrior to the CIA map. By all meas replace the CIA map with a decent one, but this map is in a word shite. Jooler 22:24, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Those blocky, pixellated, garish maps createdby Kelisi are not appropriate for Wikipedia articles. They are not better than the CIA maps in any respect; they look unprofessional and diminish the quality of the article rather than improve it. If given a choice between two maps we should pick the one which looks best, reflects the best on Wikipedia's standards for quality, and looks like a respectable encyclopedia illustration. In this case, the CIA maps are by far superior to these new ones. --Fastfission 22:51, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I am of the opinion that Kelisi's maps are preferable if the colour scheme is changed to something more pleasing to the eye. -- UTSRelativity 23:10, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: That map is unfortunately pixelated —UTSRelativity 23:57, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Top
Talk:Andrew Toti

message: Does anyone know any of the patent numbers?  Marshcmb 22:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  patents 

message: It is important to note that there is no record at all that Andrew Toti invented the Mae West, and another man, Peter Markus, patented the device when Toti was still very young. See this New York Times article for more information.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenGlass1972 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Toti did not invent the Mae West
Talk:Allen Iverson

message: — Assignment last updated by Lindseybean28 (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: College Composition II

message: The "Legacy and in popular culture" does that really need to be in the article? It's just a promotional reference to Post Malone from what I can see, not to mention the poor grammar of the title "Legacy and in popular culture" which seems like a 13 year old wrote it ? What is it, legacy or pop culture? Those are two different things. I know a lot of articles have these sections now, denoting every single reference in any movie or song. I don't think it has any thing to do with Allen Iverson really. It's a Post Malone song that uses Iverson's name. So what, why do we need to know about that in this article that's supposed to be ABOUT ALLEN IVERSON? Not about early 2000s emo singers. Chumbawampa (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy and in popular culture
Talk:Music of Central Asia

message: please add the new developments since 1992. this is wikipedia and that is the article.
 
there is no new music????? pop, rock and all is there plz add those.
223.225.147.6 (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  new things 

message: Is there such a thing, or was this a vandalism? 2606:A000:131D:C5B1:A94E:637:1ACB:E0A5 (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fiddle "wiener"?
Talk:Ashtray

message: In the early 1920s, strange-looking ashtrays depicting monkeys protecting their private parts, with the phrase (translated from the French), "No, Voronoff, you won't get me!" painted on them began showing up in Parisian homes. See reputation. It would be nice to have a photo of that ashtray for the Serge Voronoff article. -- Jreferee 21:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo request

message: Is there really a need for so many images of ashtrays? --Cpl Syx (talk) 07:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored a larger collection of images, to show the types and range of ashtrays, esp. notable designers. They could be organized into a gallery, but we should keep most of them.the previous selection was ordinary ashtrays filled with butts, just about the most disgusting selection of images in an article that i have seen. even multiple images of horse dung would be more informative than the previous selection.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: The article is missing some key elements to it. One key element could be how ashtrays played a major role in tangent with big cigarette brands such as New Ports, Marlboro, or Camel. Another could be how it was a major part of society. The content needs more information and sources.
Sir.Leyenda (talk) 02:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a source already; check this article again! TheSmartPersonUS1 (talk) 01:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Key Elements
Talk:Turkish Armed Forces

message: Hi valued wiki users
I wanted to request we change the formation of the turkish army to 1299 or atleast the official ottoman army founding. Why? Because we had an army in 1919 and in 1346 or whatever year. So we should do something like this. Turkey was a state before 1923 you know  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.206.214 (talk) 09:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No. 50.111.24.147 (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foundation in 1299 

message: People please dont use random news article if we have already a good academic research source. Here see free  Shadow4dark (talk) 08:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen the source it consider only turkish land forces even gendermarie has 300k men its impossible those numbers. If you are interested in this page you should known the term  Nato second largest army with this numbers barely get into first 10 armies. Source is correct but only land forces command Armed forces consider Air,navy and land force combine. You can chek Turkish wikipedia if you want.Cengizsogutlu (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:   gendermarie is not part of turkish armed forces. From their site they are under Ministry of the Interior. Shadow4dark (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

text:  And Conscription is reduced = less manpower. Shadow4dark (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didnt said gendermarie is in army i said manpower of gendermerie is even more which is ridiculous.. Can you tell me where this number is written on & in which pages? Determining the number by referencing a random book is absurd. At least there must be quote that mentions those numbers are expect Conscriptions..Cengizsogutlu (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Page 153, also it is not a "random book' but a academic research book. Wich is better source.Shadow4dark (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok lets use source of NATO.Shadow4dark (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers 

message: First this is about next year and it is not confirmed by sipri or NATO. Second it is unclear if it is still 40 billion if Turkish lira drops down. We better wait independent confirmation and not unverified claims. Shadow4dark (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Also the budget is for Ministry of National Defense (Turkey) and they have other branches and not just Turkish armed forces. Shadow4dark (talk) 08:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  40 Billion budget?
Talk:Melissa Beck

message: The IMDb entry shows Melissa Howard as being born in the US. There are multiple Melissa Howards in the IMDb, so could there be some type of mix-up of information? — RJH 18:16, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: However, I have kept some correspondance with Melissa and she says that she was actually born in Okinawa, Japan (as her father was in the military. Air Force, I believe?) and that for some reason, most reference sites list misinformation.  I also have better pictures of her, but I'm not sure about licensing rights, so I don't want to post anything that will be removed.  Help? --Lepetiterobot 00:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm not sure how to edit Wikipedia pages. 
Talk:Cahors

message: I've recently become aquainted with cahors wine, and came here looking to learn more about it. Sadly, I see nothing here, nor on the french wiki. Any leads? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 18:23, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wine

message: "... (Cahors) It is the smallest prefecture among the 13 departments that constitute the Occitanie Region.[2]"
Actually, the smallest prefecture among the 13 departments that constitute the Occitanie Region is Foix.
--190.163.143.173 (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population
Talk:Plutocracy

message: Literally just a line, based on Doyle's prose: "For in reality France under Louis XVI was governed not by the nobility, but by a plutocracy in which the majority of nobles had no share. Half or more of the nobility were no better off than the average bourgeois, and may were a good deal poorer." Chapter 1, France Under Louis XVI, on Google Play Books, page 27-29/468: https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=eGXrAwAAQBAJ&pg=GBS.PA26.w.1.1.269_233 Andrew DePietro 03:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding pre-revolutionary France as being plutocracy per William Doyle Oxford History book
Talk:Kajol

message: *Indian Express, 1994.
*Deccan Herald, 1998. Shahid • Talk2me 19:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early sources from the archives 

message: As I said, the idea that she had only two years of what is called here "widespread success" (this should change too) is unimaginably funny. I personally think that from 1999-2001 she was still successful and a big star even if she had flops (like any actor). But anyway 1995 was a big year for her.
I suggest one of the following:
*	Debut and rise to prominence (1992–1996)
*	Widespread success (1997–2001)
*	Comeback and intermittent work (2006–2012)
*	Dilwale and return to Tamil cinema (2015–2019)
*	Tanhaji and Netflix debut (2020–present)
or:
*	Debut and rise to prominence (1992–1994)
*	Widespread success (1995–1998)
*	Comeback and intermittent work (2006–2012)
*	Dilwale and return to Tamil cinema (2015–2019)
*	Tanhaji and Netflix debut (2020–present)
Generally, if we change "Widespread success" to "mainstream success" or "established actress". Shahid • Talk2me 10:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The first one. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 11:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you think DDLJ is part of her widespread success and not part of her breakthrough? Shahid • Talk2me 14:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have been thinking about it; you are right. The second one is better. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Sections