lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Pink (singer)

message: AirB-AV (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Melmann (talk) 06:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2019 

message: The usage of Pink is under discussion, see Talk:Pink (disambiguation)#Requested move 6 April 2020. Crouch, Swale (talk)  17:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pink" 

message: :Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs has an RFC for the use of radio station/networks' playlists being cited in articles. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Heartfox (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs]] has an [[WP:RFC|RFC]]

message: I'd love to have When I get There, Turbulence, Feeling Something  Our Song, reproduced in the CDG formatt.  Thank you for the emotional, meaningful words. 2600:1009:B049:1718:0:3:B957:7701 (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trustfall Release.
Talk:Halifax Explosion

message: , I came back to try to re-do these a different way, but two of the four sources are dead links (in suspicious ways), so I couldn't make the change I wanted to attempt.  Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk)  23:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I've swapped in new links. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bundled citations 

message: The article says: the blast travelled through the Earth at nearly 23 times the speed of sound, which isn't so obvious. Does it mean 23 times faster than the speed of sound in air?  At STP? Presumably it travels at the speed of sound in earth. Gah4 (talk) 08:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find anything in the NASA report on this, so I don't know why it's cited. What MacDonald says: "On land, the sound arrived first. It rippled through the earth at the punishing speed of 13,320 miles per hour -- twenty-three times the speed of sound." This is somewhat incoherent: first we're on land, then we're rippling through the earth, as if those are somehow related, and who or what is being punished -- Mother Earth? I'm prepared to be corrected on this, but I had the same thought you had when I saw your heading for this thread: this is the just the speed of sound in the earth's crust, which is (apparently ) something like 13000-15000 mph i.e. about 23X the speed of sound in air. While this is apparently a true statement, its use by Macdonald to dramatize something (the power of the explosion, I guess?) is misleading. It's like saying someone watching from afar "learned of the explosion at the speed of light!". Well, yeah, that's what always happens. I've removed it.This article could use some toning down e.g. "Firefighter Billy Wells, who was thrown away from the explosion and had his clothes torn from his body, described the devastation survivors faced...". EEng 12:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''the blast travelled through the Earth at nearly 23 times the speed of sound'' 

message: I am not sure how to remove dead external links as I am inexperienced and don't want to mess anything up, but there are a few audio links on this page that 'ave ceased to be :( Sorry about that! Pdxrosss (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead external links 

message: This article states that the Mont Blanc's gun flew 5.6 kilometres, yet the official placard on the monument states the distance as "almost 2 miles" (so under ~3km) to Little Albro Lake, which is only 2.1 to 2.4 kilometres from the blast site. Is the 5.6 figure taking into account the trajectory and not just the horizontal distance? If so, this should be clarified as it is misleading, especially considering how the distance given for the anchor is linear. These 2 measurements should be presented in the same way, unless I'm missing something. 38.59.182.219 (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distance the Mont Blanc's gun traveled
Talk:Lymphogranuloma venereum

message: Holy crap, oncedead didn't make it up. Jack Cain 21:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow 

message: it needs a differential diagnosis and links to other similar conditions:
Herpes
Granuloma Inguinale
Donovanosis
HassanKachal (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differential 

message: Lymphogranuloma inguinale (donovanosis) is caused by Klebsiella granulomatis, NOT Chlamydia trachomatis. This is different from lymphogranuloma venereum, which is caused by C. trachomatis.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.84.186.238 (talk) 22:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Lymphogranuloma Inguinale 

message: I know that Lymphogranuloma venerum and Chlamydia are different presentations, but they are both caused by Chlamydia trachomatis. If I remember right it is a different serotype, but this is not clear in the article. I was wondering if someone who new the topic better could flesh out that part of the article.  Thanks,  D.c.camero (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinction between LGV and Chlamydia
Talk:LDraw

message: There have been a couple of books about LDraw - would it be appropriate to mention or link to them here? Elliot Pratt 03:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, I think so. Some may have actually sold well enough to merit articles of their own .. "Lego Builder's Guide" (which only peripherally mentions LDraw but still...) by Allan Bedford supposedly is in its 4th printing. I don't know the run sizes though. ++Lar: t/c 13:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, there are several good books about LDraw. Although maybe LBG may be better mentioned somewhere on the LEGO page? Maybe Allan deserves his own page too. RoscoHead 03:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The two I had in mind are 'LDraw Power Tools' and 'Virtual Lego'. I wouldn't count LBG as an LDraw book, but it worth mentioning somewhere (the Lego article probably) along with 'Getting Started With Lego Trains'. What format should the link or mention take?Elliot Pratt 12:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ISBN number is the best if you have it. Mediawiki has magic so that if you just say ISBN 012345689 (with the correct nubmer of digits, I think either 9 or 12, depending) it creates a link to a generic (non vendor specific) page where interested readers can pursue the matter further. See Wikipedia:ISBN.  (To find ISBN's: A search via Google on the title and ISBN usually although not always works.) ++Lar: t/c 16:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the advice (and the ISBN linking below). I have included the capitalised spelling of 'Lego' in the references, because that's how it is presented in the book titles. Please feel free to correct to 'Lego' if that is what is appropriate here. I'm just not sure, but thought it better to get the references in first, and sort out the exact presentation later. Anyway, thanks again! Elliot Pratt 09:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LDraw books 

message: *This is powertools:  ISBN 978-1-931836-76-0
*and this is Virtual: ISBN 978-1-886411-94-4
gives
*This is powertools:  
*and this is Virtual: 
Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 16:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ISBN linking

message: The external links really need to be moved to a dedicated wiki or added to LDraw.org instead of listing them here on Wikipedia. There's way too many of them. SharkD (talk) 06:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many external links 

message: A potential reference for improvement of this article is at: . - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential reference 

message: It would be great if we could mention some of the various online model sharing services that support LDraw models. ➧datumizer  ☎  02:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Online services 
Talk:Coq au vin

message: Coq au vin is definitely not a soup - it's a stew.  The category should be renamed "Soups/Stews" or a separate "Stews" category should be created. Babyluck 15:55 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Techniqually, Coq au vin is not merely chicken, it is only the male, or rooster (Coq in French).  Otherwise, it would be Poulet au Vin
-Random observer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicdat (talk • contribs) 07:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course coq literally means "rooster". But in fact, coq au vin is made with all kinds of poultry. It's a name, not a description. The Hungarian wine called "Bull's blood" isn't made out of bull's blood, either. The Trésor de la langue française says that coq au vin is "fait à partir d'un coq, d'un poulet ou d'une autre volaille". I've added that info to the article. --Macrakis (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Law of excluded middle

message: The first section provides a definition for the law of excluded middle, but does not preview other sections, which I think could be useful for general comprehension of the article. The last sentence of the lead section ("A commonly cited counterexample uses statements unprovable now, but provable in the future to show that the law of excluded middle may apply when the principle of bivalence fails.[3]") is also confusing, as the counterexample is not explained. In the history section, most of the text is block quotes instead of synthesis, and the grammar for some sentences throughout the history section could be improved. The "Consequences of the law of excluded middle in Principia Mathematica" section uses lemmas not known to the reader just looking at this article; perhaps the proof could have links to relevant lemmas and theorems? Additionally, the criticism sections is not so much criticism as it is a description of how perception and usage of the law of excluded middle evolved over time; I would suggest changing the title or modifying the content to include arguments against the law (ex. the last sentence in the section).
Riyeng (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: General Edits
Talk:Transfer pricing

message: To include, for example, the glaxo Zantac case (Uk v usa) Riskit 4 a biskit (talk) 02:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add a category: important legal cases. 

message: This article is a confused mess. It should be structured to enable a reasonably educated layman to grasp the topic. However, it is written by experts for experts. Transfer pricing is a global phenomenon, so introducing geographical categories does not make sense. Riskit 4 a biskit (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article structure 

message: Section not necessary: there is a reference section for this Riskit 4 a biskit (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reading and overall reference list??
Talk:Japanese martial arts titles

message: Are you quite sure Sensei only (correctly) refers to teachers in martial arts? I was sure the term was correctly used in Go too... Evercat 22:01 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)
: AFAIK, with my limited Japanese, sensei refers to about any person teaching any given subject to students. It  is common practice in Japanese to call the teacher not by his/her name but simply use sensei. --synthetik 16:36 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
: OK, I looked up my resources again and found that they do use sensei for any teacher in general, but it is not the literal term for "teacher".  "kyoushi" means school-teacher literally and "kyouju" refers to a professor.  The literal meaning of sensei is "one who lived before", which is roughly equatable to "knowledgeable elder".  Blanking the section about only being used for martial arts masters was a good idea since they apparently do not (they even refer to politicians as sensei), but why did you blank the section about living at a dojo.  Sensei of martial arts (specifically) do live/work at a dojo.  Unless someone has objections, that section is now unblanked.Emperorbma 18:44 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
::Not only are these titles used outside of budo. The division of ranks and titles is probably true in a specific art or organisation, but it is not general as this page now implies. / Habj 11:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

message: Could somebody write a little more on why calling a martial arts teacher sensei would be derogatory?
Its not.  I rewrote the section a bit.Peter Rehse 04:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shihan 

message: I agree my edit of sensei was a bit clumsy.  I changed it initially because it gave the impression that other martial arts besides Aikido refer to Ueshiba M. as O-sensei.  Not the case.  Even within Aikido it is much more common outside Japan.  It still leaves that impression but I'll leave the change to others.  DannyWilde I actually started Aikido in Tsukuba way back.  Recognize JH from your talk page.Peter Rehse 09:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  O-sensei

message: There is still some inconsistiency between this page and the main Japanese titles page.   I think the Japanses titles page is more accurate.   It may be worthwhile to integrate this page into it.  
Brianglass 19:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it would be an improvement to merge the page with Japanese titles. // Habj 22:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The page Japanese titles have many subsections for titles in different areas. // Habj 23:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Merged - thanks Brianglass 04:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page is inconsistient
Talk:High-explosive anti-tank

message: Shouldn't this be at high explosive anti-tank shell or something? It is just a string of adjectives looking for a noun. Rmhermen 22:04 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Actually High explosive anti-tank is more than enough on it's own, that's the common term.
Shouldn't you have renamed it and not deleted it and recreated it Maury? We lost the history and links havn't been updated... That's annoying, even if the page shouldn't have been renamed in the first place... JidGom 21:04, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: 2003

message: I guess I'm jumping the gun a little bit - there needs to be a references section, at least one source, before this can truly be considered B-class. However, in other respects, I think the length and level of detail and thoroughness, along with the pretty pictures, seem to warrant a B-rating. Many editors might have left out the History section all together, but here it's fairly well written and thorough. LordAmeth 01:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:MILHIST Assessment

message: The frontal armor is. No tank can be fully armored all the way around, thus side and rear and top protection levels are significantly lower than the front, which is what is always quote when people say 'it can defeat such and such projectile'. From the rear most tanks are still vulnerable to RPG rounds and the like, which is why the urban guerilla warfare in places like Iraq was so dangerous for them. There were several M1 Abrams killed by rear sector RPG attacks in Iraq (and of course the tracks are always a weak point, so to say they are 'invulnerable' is mistaken.
Also, why does the text say HEAT has 'no incendiary effect' when the comments are filled with people saying the plasmacised metal jet will set things inside on fire? Even if it does not actually 'burn' or 'melt' through armor (and I have my doubts) that does not mean it does not have an incendiary effect. I would be surprised if things were not set on fire by HEAT rounds, which is an incendiary effect. A DU round does not use heat to penetrate, but it certainly has an incendiary effect.
64.223.106.178 (talk) 02:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern tanks are not 'invulnerable' to HEAT 

message: "The jet's effect is purely kinetic in nature; the round has no explosive or incendiary effect on the target. " -- simply not true. 
Yes, they are not the primary effects, but still present, especially incendiary after armor penetration. Blast effect of kilos of the HE charge also is significant, will destroy external equipment.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.80.182.89 (talk) 07:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have adjusted the wording. (Hohum @) 01:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  explosive and incendiary effects
Talk:LunarStorm

message: I tried to make the description sound more natural in English.  Not sure how successful I was.  Lucielle 20:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Englishification 

message: List of social networking websites is currently an AfD candidate.  You are invited to partake in this discussion. Czj 18:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of social networking websites on AfD 

message: Epuls is based on idea of LunarStorm, but it's not the same website. Please, do not add interwiki link to pl:Epuls. Visor (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lunarstorm is not Epuls 
Talk:Anna Nicole Smith

message: :Anonymous contributor constantly vandalized ANS and Dannieynn's pages with  lurid, tabloid unsourced information. Smith was a tabloid fodder, but should we mention all  her scandals, feuds, gossip, trysts,  etc.? Glendale10 (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No, per WP:PROPORTION, . Normal Op (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Tabloid sources

message: This link is useless. 78.126.117.185 (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ref 92 (Monument) 

message: The 2023 Netflix documentary interviewed those involved 15 years down the line. 
Those who wanted to talk to netflix did so. 
They also included old footage.
2A01:799:31F:5F00:6AC9:A87D:9C2A:A17D (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there, you're right. My idea is to add some references coming from the documentary, and add some information about her career because the section of Personal life is way too long. Greetings! Juan Pop Gamer (talk) 02:18, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Netflix
Talk:Lake Union

message: A user editing with an IP address removed what I thought was a stunning picture of a seaplane that had been uploaded by User:IanLamberson; no comments were given on the talk page and no edit summary was reported.  So I've replaced the picture.  If it should be removed, please comment on the discussion page to avoid reverting without comment edits made in good faith.   J Crow 21:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I left the pic, but removed the section on seaplanes, as it was just one sentence, repeated from the Recreation section. Little too much like an ad for the company running them. Murderbike 01:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Seaplane image

message: I'm going to delete the following text, as it appears to be original research and reads like an attempted joke.  If there is any information that is verifiable in this text, please provide a citation for your claims.  Please see: WP:TONE, WP:NOR, and WP:CITE. The user in question was editing from an anonymous IP address. IanLamberson 17:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mythology?

message: A recent edit removed the text "Kayaking is popular in the warmer months.".  Why?  Is it unpopular in summer months?
Every time I've been on Lake Union, I've seen kayaks, any time of the year.  But that's my original research.
Why was it removed!
Also, the note about Kenmore air says that they fly several times a day in the summer.  They actually fly much more often, and they fly year-round.  About the only time they don't fly is on the afternoon of 4 July, because the lake is so full of boats.  Again, my original research
— JBazuzi (talk • contribs) 00:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recreation 

message: Just checking this article for some info - 12,000 years seems very recent for glacial activity. The Green Lake, Seattle article puts the date at 50,000 years ago - seems more reasonable. Shouldn't be hard to reference. Bob98133 (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  glacier - 12,000 years ago? 
Talk:Etruscan civilization

message: There are a few places in the article that mix up which form of English they're using. Per these edits and the current placement of the page, the usage's been established as American English so kindly maintain it consistently pending a new consensus to the contrary. — LlywelynII 06:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: What American English do you see in those diffs? Johnbod (talk) 13:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting to see BCE in the earliest version though! Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:ENGVAR]]
Talk:China Central Television

message: Surely the phrase "state-owned propaganda machine" violates Wikipedia's policy for impartiality? LeetToTheBeatMakeItRoar (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but it appears there are WP:COI or basic troll farms or state paid propaganda actors of the U.S. government's defence dpartment or their paid think-tanks on here who are actively changing Wikipedia to have everything the U.S. government's talking points should be about foreign entities. CaribDigita (talk) 11:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

text: Well, at the very least - "propaganda machine" part is an epithet if not straight down name-calling it's just not neutral, hands down. 2A00:1370:81A2:156:30F4:76F0:BD72:10BB (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article too negative 

message: Ridiculous, e.g. non-neutral line. Had the head paragraph omited Propaganda outlet notion, the head paragraph would be concise to read. "State-owned media" should have been enough, but noooooo~ 2A00:1370:81A2:156:30F4:76F0:BD72:10BB (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you restate what your specific issue is? CCTV is a media outlet, and one that distributes propaganda. I really don't see how that's "non-neutral". Remsense留 23:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird style with headlines
Talk:Norfolk wherry

message: Dear Sir or Madam,
I am a model boater who is interested in building a scale model of a wherry, possibly White Moth as I would prefer to make a cruising wherry rather than a working one.
I need plans for frames, mast height and indeed any other details that can be scaled to suit my needs.
If you cannot help perhaps you would be very kind and send an address of somebody who could.
many thanks,
Angela Halliday
angela@angelah.force9.co.uk
:Please enquire at the Reference Desk.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:
Talk:Conventional Egyptian chronology

message: Why aren't any dates provided for Amenhotep II and Thutmose IV? john k 13:45, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates for Amenhotep II and Thutmose IV? 

message: The 27th and later dynasties, including the Ptolemies, are needed still Klompje7 10:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Later Dynasties Needed 

message: I linkified as many names as I could find. Many of the spellings as listed here do not match the article titles, but it's beyond my expertise level to pick one or the other, so I just linked without changing either this list or the article. Igiffin 23:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to existing articles
Talk:Rachel True

message: Rachel True is currently being attacked on twitter and someone has decided to edit her page to make it appear she's no longer an actor.
The recent edits that she is currently a tarot reader rather than an accomplished currently working actress as well as author, tarot expert is designed to hurt her career. 
Remove line that she is currently a tarot reader.
The article linked is from several years ago when she was doing research for her upcoming tarot book and deck set for Houghten Mifflin Harcourt scheduled for release October 2020.
Rachel True appeared on several episodes of The Fox TV show Better Things in 2018, and is currently  in Buffalo NY, shooting the film One day At A Time. 184.74.37.190 (talk) 04:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Upsidedown Keyboard (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2019