lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Thiers Issard

message: There are only two sources for citations; one is the website of the company, the other is a long article on the website of a company selling the company's product.
An abbreviated version of this article could be merged with the article "Straight razor", but this article, itself, should be deleted as an advertisement. Too Old 23:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is too facile to dismiss these two sources. But they have no reason to lie. The products' claims made are universally acknowledged as true and they are technical in nature. The processes they describe are universally known. They don't claim they cure cancer. They specify the materials and processes used in their products. If they were not true they could be sued. The tone of the article in measured. The DOVO article does not cite any sources. Thiers Issard is a famous razor maker. They deserve their own article. It is not their fault that they are one of the best razor makers in the world. Do I advertise them by saying that? In the same way the Rolex and Rolls Royce websites provide information about their products and nobody accuses them of lying so does Thiers Issard provide reliable info in theirs. I can distinguish between hype and technical info by training. It is disappointing to see instead of trying to improve the article an almost reflexive action to want to destroy it. Dr.K. 00:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only other competing product is made by DOVO. They are jointly considered to be the best cutlers/ razor producers in the world. The citations from CNN and GQ corroborate this. Dr.K. 04:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. Have you heard of False advertising? Is it only in my part of the world? Dr.K. 04:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertisement?? 

message: *The article misses that the company "Thiers Issard Sabatier" is just one (albeit apparently the best-known) of many cutleries in Thiers.
*Thiers Issard Sabatier produces not only razors, but also kitchen knives and razor blades (since 1920).
In general, this article should focus more on the company than on the precise process of how they manufacture their razors. Lupo 21:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestions. I'll incorporate the first two in the text. As far as the razor manufacturing processes, given that this is one of their best known products and that the processes they use are unique, their razors and associated processes must be mentioned as part of their traditional manufacturing skills set. I think if we incorporate more products and processes the current emphasis on razors will be diluted, except if a separate article dealing only with their razors were to be created. Dr.K. (talk) 21:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions
Talk:Newfane, Vermont

message: I've restored the link because, although it's dead, it was supplied by the original contributor of the piece.  I base this on the following train of thought:
*If a dead link given as a reference should be removed, the statement itself is eligible to be removed if nothing is found.
*If sources are allowed to be removed like this, one or more sources (since addition having become dead links) proving notability could be deleted.
*If sources proving notability could be deleted, the article itself could be deleted.
*If the article could be deleted because the sources disappeared, it is obvious that notability for the article's subject was temporary.
*Notability is not temporary: therefore if something becomes established as notable, it cannot be deleted later simply for being non-notable.
*The previous statements fail this last point; therefore, I believe that the dead link given as a reference should not be removed.  Nyttend 01:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impeachment link 

message: The 01:36, 17 June 2009 Juliancolton version of this article is translated into Chinese Wikipedia to expand a stub there.--Wing (talk) 10:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation into Chinese Wikipedia 
Talk:Hedwig

message: On this link, [], the name means "contention war". Should someone change this?
--Chomeara 01:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning dispute 

message: I've lived all my life in different parts of northern Germany but I've never heard of that. You may check the German Wiki, there is https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heißwecke but that never sounds like Hedwig, except  someone has a serious speech impediment.2A02:8109:8140:743C:B4E2:7B36:811B:EC28 (talk) 02:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed as unreferenced. Thanks. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  No German bun
Talk:Albena Bakratcheva

message: Most of the article material (starting from the date of birth actually) is not attributed to any source. I also have not seen references showing that WP:PROF is met. 
It appears that the subject of the article contributed to it. WP:AUTO does not forbid it, but requires much more scrutiny on the article Alex Bakharev 05:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Requirements covered. Please remove tabs.--85.130.8.114 (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 
Talk:CKLM-FM

message: I'm not sure that I agree with the most recent edit to the article, the summary for which states: "CRTC gives the location as Lloydminster, Alberta in its documents, so I'm using that to determine which province it is in."  This isn't a situation where the signal is picked up in another city, or an issue of where a station is received -- the station serves Lloydminster, and Lloydminster straddles the provincial border.  The station is located within a municipality that is partially located in Saskatchewan - heck, the station's slogan is "border rock".  Whether the studios presently happen to be located on the Alberta or Saskatchewan side of the invisible border is an overly technical response that ignores the point and purpose of the categories in question, and of the unique nature of Lloydminster itself. Heck, the if the Lloydminster Centennial Civic Centre can be included in both :Category:Sports venues in Alberta and :Category:Sports venues in Saskatchewan, then I am not sure what the issue is with this radio station.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:Radio stations in Saskatchewan
Talk:Ultraflight Lazair

message: There are some reports that a late variant was used as the basis for the airplane in the film "The God's must be crazy II". Can anyone confirm this? Thanks
--Avimimus (talk) 20:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lazair in The Gods Must Be Crazy II?

message: Any other editors who have soloed a Lazair can put this box on their user page, if they so desire. - Ahunt (talk) 17:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Userbox
Talk:Velyki Ukraïntsi

message: Possible typo: "The Freedom of Speach" or "The Freedom of Speech? Ostap 01:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The correct way to spell it would be "The Freedom of Speech." —dima/talk/ 01:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: (Comment)
Talk:Boyce

message: Something you guys might want to add:
Boyce is a first name (but not a common one). It's origins are Old French, and it was formerly a surname, (it still is, but you know what I mean). It means "wood". All of this information was from []. 
--Chomeara 01:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The link you cite doesn't actually mention anything about it being a first name, just it being derrived from a term meaning wood. TheIslander 15:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boyce is a first name
Talk:Rohullah (Bagram detainee)

message: Two parallel versions of this article were prepared.  I left a note on the other author's talk page.
I think the two versions should be merged.  I think this is the better name, as Haji is just
an honorary title, not a a name.
Cheers!  Geo Swan 01:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think there was one sentence to merge from my final version.  This version contains the same information that mine did, if presented differently.  I'll just maintain that I actually beat you by about 22 minutes...Someguy1221 02:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: merge?
Talk:Southsea Castle

message: says 1823
 says 1828
Which one is right? Need to check more sources.©Geni 01:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of lighthouse

message: http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/paintings/southsea-castle-from-the-east-24753
Need to check author's date of death.
©Geni 04:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible pic

message: I'm hoping to further develop this article over the coming weeks and then submit it it to GA review. As part of that, I'd like to alter the citation system. This requires prior discussion on the talk page under the WP:CITEVAR policy.
Currently the article generally (but no entirely consistently) uses long citations, e.g. "Webb, John (1977). The Siege of Portsmouth in the Civil War. Portsmouth City Council. pp. 18–19. ISBN 0-901559-33-4." With a greater density of citations, this can be less easy to use or read. I'm proposing the harvb template and bibliography approach, supported by cite web in cs2 mode. This produces short citations, such as "Webb 199, pp. 18-19", with the full book details automatically linked in a bibliography below. For an example of how this looks and works in practice, have a look at Henry I of England, which I was also involved in. 
I'd welcome your thoughts. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: And developed. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

text: For the avoidance of doubt as the person who added most of the citations prior to Hchc2009 I'm pretty much indifferent on the matter.©Geni (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed change to citation style...
Talk:Marcus (name)

message: Wikidata has also Markus (given name), see :Wikidata:Q17520949--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Markus to the standalone article? 

message: How 105.112.161.138 (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of Marcus 

message: The redirect Reign of Marcus has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  ★Trekker (talk) 10:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Reign of Marcus]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Dualism in cosmology

message: This article was merged with the old article for Dualism (which now redirects to Dualism (disambiguation)). The justification and proposal can be found on the talk page of Dualism. The selective merger was carried out in my sandbox.
Gazelle55 (talk) 21:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger with Dualism

message: I'm making the following edits  →‎Gnosticism: replaced supreme being with "god" Again in DUALIST Gnosticism, it is an equal god. It is only in nondualistic Gnosticism that a superior "Supreme being" OR "God" would exist alongside an imperfect god
While some Gnostics may have believed in a merely imperfect demiurge, the article is on the subject of dualism, it needs to be pointed out. Perhaps the material needs more citations! 
Someone has tried to revert my edits, I've been involved in editing wars since 2005, I understand how these things go. As an alternative, I'd gladly delete the sentences, altogether, unfortunately leaving a rather anemic. If no attempt is made to discriminate between Dualistic Gnosticism and Non-Dualistic Gnosticism, I elect removing the entire Gnosticism section, as there is nothing inherently dualistic about Gnosticism, and it is too vague, variable, and, I'd say not enough historical data available to be more specific, as the original Gnostic documents were often burned and otherwise destroyed throughout European history.
:- the article Gnosticism does not mention non-dualistic Gnosticism - citations are required to introduce the concept of non-dualistic Gnosticism as dualism is considered one of the defining characteristics of Gnosticism - Epinoia (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Gnosticism

message: Daoism is NOT dualist. The Yin and Yang symbol is about the illusory appearance of dualism, not dualism. All references to Daoism should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.44.214 (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dualism and Daoism
Talk:CCGS Hudson

message: I placed a  after the paragraph that mentions plans for the Hudson's replacement.  The Diefenbreaker is the replacement for the Laurier, if I am not mistaken.  It would certainly make sense for DFO to announce plans to replace the Hudson.  But it would be best if the article directly cited that announcement.  Geo Swan (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|cn}}
Wikipedia talk:Meetup/DC 3

message: I'd like to meet up with some Wikipedians as well, but it is not easy to get out of the house because of the kiddie.  May I bring her?
Imaginativeone (talk) 12:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  May I bring my child? 

message: I'll shoot a photo of Skewers/Luna on the way into work tomorrow.  I work right across the street.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be very helpful. Thanks. --Aude (talk) 02:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And it is done.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skewers photo 

message: Can someone clue me in as to what to expect at these meetings? The most information I can find is Wikipedia:Meetup#Procedure, however that information is mostly logistical. What are these meetings for? Just for Wikipedians to socialize, or is there some sort of directed aim? Thanks. — Epastore (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You pretty much hit the nail on the head. At the second meetup we pretty much socialized about Wikipedia and related things for a while, though we did talk about things other than Wikipedia as well. Okay, so basically we get together and talk about anything.  --Coredesat 22:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Going to this meetup might be considered by more people (who've never been to one before) if there were something on the main page giving at least some indication of what to expect. -DoctorW 20:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Meetups are informal... an opportunity to put faces to usernames, get to know people, socialize, and have fun.  Somehow, I think it helps cut through some of the wikidrama.  If one knows the person behind the username, I think maybe people wouldn't do and say some of the things that cause drama around here.  We can talk about Wikipedia, or whatever. --Aude (talk) 20:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agenda? 

message: We'd love to have some of those real barnstars to give out as prizes to winning students at our Wikipedia Takes Manhattan March 28.  Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 05:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'm kind of curious, too, as to where those came from...  SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who brought the barnstars? 
Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Brookline, Massachusetts

message: Just went through the whole list to
*check to see that any images in articles were also here
*check to see if piping was needed
. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)  00:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scan 

message: The VFW Parkway is missing from the Brookline list, although only a short segment does pass through the town limits. --Polaron | Talk 15:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  missing 

message: I note that here, and perhaps in some other NRHP lists, we alphabetize "Saint" as "Saint" and "St." as "St...", thus
*Saint Paul's Rectory
*Sargent's Pond
*Second Unitarian Church
*Eliphalet Spurr House
*St. Mark's Methodist Church
*James H. Standish House
In other places, e.g. Boston and Middlesex County, we follow the more usual practice (including the phone book) and put the abbreviated Saints with the spelled out Saints. If there's no objection we should do that here at the same time we add the VFW parkway, see above. (I might well do the resort -- I'd wait for a decision on the broader missing parkways question, however.). . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)  16:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no good reason not to alphabetise them this way.  By default, they're alphabetised as "St" instead of as "Sa", because the NRIS database doesn't know that "St." stands for "Saint"; where they're done differently, it's because we realised the error and moved it.  Nyttend (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh.  So NRIS is smart enough to put Standish and Spurr (above) in the right place, but doesn't know about Saints?  First amendment, I guess... . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)  17:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the NRIS names, you'll see that they're listed as "Spurr, Eliphalet, House" and "Standish, James H., House"; it was simply a bit easier to notice the turned-around name (especially because the pre-table lists already had the names turned around; see here for an example) than the "St."s when we were adding the tables.  Using the NRIS database, it's impossible to have something display one way and sort another, so the only thing that could be done (quite a reasonable plan, in my mind) would be for the NRIS to change all instances of "St." to "Saint".  Nyttend (talk) 17:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorting
Talk:Sub-lieutenant

message: Dependant on seniority, a SLT is directly equivalent to a 2nd Lt or 1st Lt in the Army.  A graduate joining the RN will do so as a SLT and will remain at that rank until being promoted to LT RN, which is directly equivalent to a Captain in the Army.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris brokensha (talk • contribs) 15:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sub Lieutenent is not junior to 1st Lt in the Army 

message: Since it was controversial, I put a reference in for the 'further promotion' comment.   I think what Walker meant while both Midshipmen and Master's Mates were warrant officers, Midshipmen were assumed to be Gentlemen and Master's Mates weren't.  Master's Mates originally were ordinary seamen, so Midshipmen who decided to choose a lower social station to make more money were basically dropping out of the track for promotion to Lieutenant, although it still could happen.  The Social History of the Royal Navy 1793-1815 has a similar story.  Midshipmen and Master's Mates shared the same quarters, and could be very young or very old and overlapped until the Navy decided to formalize these roles into ranks in the 1840's.  
Also, the large number lieutenants promoted in 1815 were all basically retired, and didn't have an effect on future promotions. Kirk (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Master's Mate comments 

message: I wonder if anyone has a reference that a SLT is addressed as "Sub Lieutenant" as opposed to "Acting Sub Lieutenant" (When spoken) in the Canadian Armed Forces..? I was always told to use the fully qualified rank when speaking to them...? Dphilp75 (talk) 21:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example given in Canada and Australia 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Able Seaman (rank) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 23:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: Can anyone tell me why there is this article and then there is this article entitled Second Lieutenant?  They appear to be the same rank and have same the NATO code. The only difference is this uses a British term and the latter, an American one.86.157.48.253 (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Two articles on the same rank
Talk:List of currently active United States military land vehicles

message: Hello short question at the article of the dragon fire it says it was cancled yet here it says there are 66 in service? whats true now?? Alex331994 (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dragon Fire 

message: Why are there just letter a's in the miscellaneous where vehicles should be? SchoolChromebookUser (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A???
Talk:Kolovrat

message: Should we make a separate page just for the symbol?--Kolia. 03:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, unless you have reputable sources, admissible in wikipedia for reference, to satisfy the  Wikipedia:Verifiability requirement. `'Míkka 03:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Politics of Virginia

message: I call attention to the last two paragraphs- in particular:
* Republicans took control around the turn of the 21st century and promptly redistricted to protect their incumbents
* The electorate's reaction to Allen's gaffe further demonstrated the changing sensibilities of the region's citizens; prior to that, Allen had a double-digit lead in the polls.
69.221.122.46 (talk) 04:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: It is not clear what this article is supposed to cover in comparison with the more robust Republican Party of Virginia and Democratic Party of Virginia articles. Racepacket (talk) 13:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I see this article mainly as subarticle of a few things: Primarily the Politics section on the article Virginia, but also of Politics of the United States and Politics of the Southern United States. Those should be the primary vehicles of information, and this should supplement those with more specific information. Still, I would love this to work better as a standalone page.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 19:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Scope

message: Not sure it's so Republican Leaning, perhaps this should be taken out.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.81.35 (talk) 01:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 11th congressional district
Talk:Tsybin RSR

message: Max speed 500 km/h? That means a P-51 could fly around it in circles. Surely it does faster than that? 83.248.81.186 (talk) 11:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 500 km/h was the fastest the NM-1 was flown at - remember it was an arodynamic testbed only, and probably wasn't required to go fast. The point of these types of low powered test beds is often to test the low speed handling of a novel layout before flying the definative high-speed aircraft. The RSR was to have engines of about double the power and was expected to reach Mach 2+.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Performance

message: What does the RS stand for? Thanks, Maikel (talk) 10:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: RS

message: I think the claim that the aircraft would barrel roll to avoid SAMs is incorrect.
Directly from the source we have "To avoid surface-to-air missiles it was restressed to enable the aircraft to make a barrel roll to 42km (137,800ft)." This is very confusing and seems almost like a translation error. Following the source chain from that document leads to a source in Russian that provides "The dynamic ceiling could reach 42 km. Thus, making a "jump" to the dynamic ceiling when passing through the air defense zones of a potential enemy" through Google translation. This implies a temporary zoom climb or arc over SAM sites rather than some manner of roll. Kontakr (talk) 17:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Barrel Roll?
Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Pigman

message: Category talk:3
Image:5
Mainspace4297
Portal:1
Talk:174
Template talk:1
Template:3
User talk:1032
User:320
Wikipedia talk:50
Wikipedia:614
avg edits per page 1.24
earliest03:32, 2 June 2005
number of unique pages5224
total6500
* The edit count was retrieved from this link at 03:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit count for Pigman