lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Orthogonal frequency-division multiple access

message: This is perhaps the lowest quality page I've seen on Wikipedia in some time. It obviously needs to be completely cleaned up.
:user:209.166.211.66 02:17, 17 August 2005 
: I have rewritten it. Some illustrations would help. Mange01 13:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the OFDM explains it all? But that article would also need some illustrations. Mange01 13:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

message: From the image of the OFDMA subcarriers, does this mean, that pilot subcarriers have more power?  
In Fundamentals of WiMAX on the page 282: "The power in the pilot subcarriers, as shown here, is boosted by 2.5 dB, allowing reliable channel tracking even at low-SNR conditions."
This chapter is about OFDMA used in WiMAX, so I think piot subcarriers have more power, than the other subcarriers.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Csolaszol86 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Typically yes. Also in OFDM systems like DVB-T, pilot subcarriers are boosted. Mange01 (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Boosted subcarriers
Template talk:European art history

message: I wonder if it wouln't be useful to have an "Western art by county" section added to the template (a reference to "French art" could lead to French art).  The template could also be significantly expanded to render it more useful... please see Template:French art history to see what I mean.  --NYArtsnWords 00:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposed revision of the template
Talk:Toilet roll holder

message: Why is there no picture of a standard toilet paper holder? We have some fancy ones, but we're not even covering the basics?? howcheng  {chat} 22:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: * Spanish: Dosificador de jabón, Dispensador de jabón
Fructibus (talk) 10:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translations 

message: Toilet paper orientation was created in 2010 as a stand alone article. It seemed like a good idea, and I enthusiastically took on the GA review: Talk:Toilet paper orientation/GA1. It was almost passed as a Good Article, but I felt there was an excess of unnecessary material, and rather too much original research. I wanted the article to be good, but unfortunately on examination it was trivial, light-hearted, and padded out with tenuous material. After some discussion, it was felt that no progress was being made, and it was failed. I moved on. Last year, Oct 2021, I landed on the article due to concerns about the further reading section. I noted that there were a number of concerns voiced on the talkpage over the years, suggesting that the state of the article was poor, and the jokey, trivial tone was not helpful to Wikipedia's reputation. I stayed on to help tidy the article, trim the excess, and then to hopefully build it into the sort of helpful and well sourced article we hope to have on Wikipedia. After two months of researching and editing I had about the right amount of information (though I feel there is still a degree of fluff and nonsense, and too much coverage for what turns out to be a fairly trivial topic) and merged it into what I felt to be the most appropriate location so the orientation of the toilet roll could be read in context: Toilet_roll_holder#Orientation. That merge has now been undone, so I'm opening a discussion to get a consensus on what to do with the article. Should it be a stand alone, or should it redirect to Toilet_roll_holder#Orientation? SilkTork (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Toilet Paper Orientation should continue to stand alone - it's a quirky topic that is of interest not because of the mechanism involved (and frankly, a whole article about toilet roll holders seems ridiculous to me) but because of semi-jokey, semi-serious interest in people's habits and interactions. But I don't feel strongly either way.  - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

text: I Strongly oppose a merge. The merging of the two articles seems very odd when the toilet paper orientation article , when this article both a) has a long history of public attention, and a robust set of sources focused exactly on the topic (thus meeting general notability) and b) persistent high pageviews, showing that there is a readership demand. Sadads (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: And also, the toilet paper holder article would be overwhelmed by what the socialogical examination of a preference, whereas the article could/should be focused on the engineering and the design of the holders.  Sadads (talk) 14:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[Toilet paper orientation]] to [[Toilet roll holder]]
Talk:Battle of Ctesiphon (1915)

message: How it works is that by referencing "campaign=Mesopotamian" it will automatically bring in the Mesopotamian Campaign in at the bottom. The campaignbox is at Template:Campaignbox_Mesopotamian and there's more info at Wikipedia:WikiProject Battles. It's a bit fiddly and it wasn't helped by me constantly misspelling Mesopotamia.
Fall of Baghdad currently redirects to the 2003 events so we should add a disambiguation page when we get to it.
This is great stuff so far, everyone! Let's complete the Mesopotamian Campaign! Ben-w 17:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New Campaignbox

message: I changed some instances of "Nurettin" to "Nureddin".  It looks like the Turkish spelling is "Nurettin" but since his Wikipedia entry and also other articles use "Nureddin", I changed it for consistency.  TresÁrboles (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling of the Pasha's Name

message: The Turkish 51st Division is mentioned twice here. First it is newly raised and then a veteran division. Was it really so that she was both?213.71.6.130 (talk) 09:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Veterans or newly raised? 
Talk:Clarence Brandley

message: appologies for the shocking layout so far. Will tidy this all up when i get time.  If you are able, feel free to help. Thanks.
A chunk of this appears to be cut and pasted from this article. It should be re-written using original text. Niteowlneils 02:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (From: This account was written by Rob Warden, executive director of the Center on Wrongful Convictions, and posted here May 5, 2002. Permission is granted to reprint, quote, or post on other web sites with appropriate attribution.)
--Bookandcoffee 22:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with Niteowlneils. Even with the above notice, this article needs work. I did a bit on it, but I think it could be condensed a bit.--Bookandcoffee 22:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Bal du moulin de la Galette

message: <venting>There's got to be more to say about this painting than its price. Why is it important in the history of art? Why is it considered so precious? What is the "story" of the painting?</venting>>>sparkit|TALK<< 00:47, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
:We might start with its name.  I apologize for being an uncultured lout, but I don't know enough French to translate toe "Bal au" part. LWizard @ 00:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More to say about this than price? 

message: There appears to be some confusion between Bal au moulin de la Galette, Montmartre and Au Moulin de la Galette. I gather the larger painting is the one in the Orsay, and smaller was sold at auction and is now in private ownership. Can someone find definitive confirmation of this and perhaps sort this out in the respective articles? -Twirling 18:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Which is which?

message: The correct title of this picture is Bal du moulin de la Galette; sources: Musée d'Orsay, French Wikipedia. I suggest to move the article and to modify its text and the text in all articles in "What links here", especially in Pierre-Auguste Renoir, accordingly. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: I don't actually know how to fix the syntax, but the "dimensions" field is having trouble, displaying some error in red.  This seemed like the best way to bring it up.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.221.41 (talk) 03:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for spotting this. It seems that the :Template:Infobox artwork now must be provided with the parameters  & ; so done. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup in "Dimensions" 

message: Some say Bal au moulin de la Galette and some say Bal du moulin de la Galette
Lets try to reach a consensus:
*Bal au moulin de la Galette
*Bal du moulin de la Galette
*Support this title (du) - (even though I've changed my mind twice)...Modernist (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree: Bal  moulin de la Galette. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Title consensus
Talk:Alfred I, Prince of Windisch-Grätz

message: I avoided any change to the spelling of the name but I did move the article to a form of <title> of <name or place>. Zu alone in a German title is translated as of. Charles 00:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved the article 

message: I really fail to see the point in constantly moving the article around from one excessive spelling to another. Alfred Windischgrätz (with or without the umlaut) is clearly the most linked variant, why not use that common name? --Joy [shallot] 01:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And I nearly added another redirect.  I won't.  It does look like an odd spelling, but the German WP uses something almost the same. I agree it seems like it has been moved enough. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old talk material
Talk:Crown Royal (album)

message: I think this album came out in 2001, not 1999.  Can anyone confirm?  I don't have the album with me at the moment, will check it when I can.  Amazon seems to agree with me.  --Myles Long 20:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Verified, copyright date on the CD states 2001. --Myles Long 04:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release date 
Talk:New Brunswick Route 95

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
Stale discussion, now at proper name per naming conventions in place. --Admrboltz (talk) 16:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Surrender of Japan

message: A 2009 FA with notable issues:
*Countless sentences and paragraphs without refs.
*The article overuses quotes and blockquotes, of which many are lengthy.
*Some large paragraphs only supported by one citation at the end.
*Many webpages referenced when they're better covered by high-quality academic books and journals.
*More than a third (73/185) of all citations rely only on Frank 1999 and Hasegawa 2005 as of now.
*Thousands of new, quality texts on this vital topic exist in TWL. Some are definitely due for inclusion.
*Citations and explanatory notes are mixed, but the problem is that different refstyles are used for each note.
Pinging FAC nominators  and . Wretchskull (talk) 10:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you still have these concerns with the article? If so, do you want to take this to FAR? Z1720 (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAR needed 

message: I hope it's not too unhelpful to give general feedback? the introduction is too long but I'm not sure how I'd summarise it. So just leaving it as a general suggestion. FourPi (talk) 06:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  the intro is too long
Talk:The Everglow

message: waht is the everglow based on?
I wish I knew what you were talking about... Could you restate that using different words?
Underwater 21:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

message: They are Christians, they listed God/Jesus as a major influence of theirs in an interview with yahoo launch. Should the part about them not being christians change? Reiver 05:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Christian Influence?

message: The Everglow Special Edition article contains very little content that is not simply a repeat of content here. For three extra tracks, two or three lines about those tracks, and a new album cover (for which there already exists a specific template for the main infobox: ), a separate article doesn't seem necessary. I'm proposing the SE article be merged here. Comments? --Fru1tbat 16:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Didn't know the extra album cover, but it makes perfect sense to merge.  I can help with the edit after Fru1tbat if you need it.  I'm sure you want to give it some time to allow others the chance to get the word in..  --DJREJECTED 23:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all for a merger.  There's nothing substantiative in the Special Edition article that couldn't be concentrated and added to a subsection in the larger Everglow article.  Three's a crowd, & it's been a few months...let's do it!  Cathryn 03:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I made a crack at merging. I'm not real happy with the dual fields in the infobox, but I couldn't figure out a better way. Feel free to try something else. --Fru1tbat 23:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge special edition here? 
Talk:Cytopathology

message: Technically, the pap smear is used to screen for pre-cancerous lesions before they become cancerous and are thus 100% treatable.  --Mssmith 01:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Technically

message: I'm being bold.  I've changed some of the existing sections (you can see my reasons in the edit histories) and added some new stuff in, with the intention of filling in the red links over time.  Feel free to jump in & do some if you like.  If you take exception to some of my deletion, then please feel free to discuss it here.  Cheers!  Mattopaedia (talk) 08:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Work in progress 

message: The first image in the #Cell_collection section is currently captioned, "Brushes used to collect samples for cytology brush PCR."  (Image and caption added by User:Oaktree b on 14 December 2011.)  "PCR" here is not linked but presumable refers to polymerase chain reaction, however this technology is mentioned nowhere else in the article.  Does PCR play a role in cytopathology, and if so should it be mentioned in the article?  The only mention of DNA currently in this article relates to visible changes in the nucleus. -- ToE 08:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Role of PCR in Cytopathology
Talk:Hurricane Ethel (1960)

message: What does that even mean? Cyclone1 12:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It means curving around it, hugging the coast, usually at a fairly swift rate of speed. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 04:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh ok. Thanks. Cyclone1 19:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  After Skirting around Louisiana? 

message: External links section, more impact (if possible), better intro. Jdorje 04:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More structure is needed. This article's format should be no different than any other hurricane article. Hurricanehink 00:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep.  Lengthening the storm history section and adding subsections is possible (see Hurricane Wilma) but I would doubt that it is worth much all that much time. — jdorje (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Todo 

message: I know it is pretty obvious that this should be disputed somewhere in more modern literature, but do we have a source anywhere? The MWR presents the 140kt as fact. We need a source to say its disputable, not editors saying "its obvious".--Nilfanion (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I too have heard Ethel's status disputed but I can't remember where. I vaguely remember it being in a PDF document. Sorry I can't be of more help. I don't believe someone just made that up. -- §HurricaneERICarchive 22:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I remember reading that the 140 kt was a flight level report. If that's the case, here's the NHC recon data for Ethel. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was it! I heard the exact same thing! I clearly remember thinking, "Wait, aren't surface winds different from those at flight level?" 140 knots at flight level corresponds to about 125 knots by my rough (and unofficial) calculations. That's a bit more believeable and I think that Ethel's actual peak intensity was 125 knots or less. I hope somebody who's smarter than I am can interprit those recon reports you linked to, Hink. I sure can't. -- §HurricaneERICarchive 23:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah but ALL wind speeds before like 1990 are flight level.  185 mph in gilbert: flight level.  190 mph in Camille: flight level.  And so on. — jdorje (talk) 00:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: About as much as you can say is that it is questionable.  And not all flight level winds prior to 1990 were used for sustained winds.  In the 1960's they seemed to be.  The Atlantic hurricane reanalysis will sort this out, likely in 7-8 years using past progress as a guide.  Thegreatdr (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research on "false" category 5
Talk:Anna Kyoyama

message: Does the manga/anime say that Anna is a traditional itako, because the article for itako says that itakos are blind, not that they are sometimes blind or usually blind, and Anna is not blind. Also, in the English version of the show Anna is called a spirit medium. I will add this name next to itako until someone confirms this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.126.129 (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Itako 
Talk:Edward Seaga

message: I have just reverted User:Lanzojm21's edits, which wiped out nearly all the wiki links.  Please don't do that - it's considered vandalism.  David Cannon 02:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't remove links 

message: The article appears very slanted toward Seaga, and contains zero citations. I'm adding the appropriate tags.--Chimino (talk) 04:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV II 

message: Can someone add an explanation of how his name is pronounced in the article? TuckerResearch (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's 'See-ah-guh'.--Michig (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

text: I've given it a go in the article. --Michig (talk) 06:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation? 

message: I noticed that his nationality was changed to "American". While he was born in the US, he lived almost his entire life in Jamaica, so it seems like Jamaican would be the appropriate nationality. For that reason, I'm reverting the recent change. Guettarda (talk) 23:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationality 

message: As the article currently stands, there is a disturbing tendency to completely avoid all mention of episodes in the life of Edward Seaga that make him look bad. To give just one example, it is notable and well-sourced that he was repeatedly named in the assassination attempt on Bob Marley and that the culprits had direct ties to him and his bodyguards (see the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempted_assassination_of_Bob_Marley). In this article on Seaga, the entire incident is carefully avoided. This is not acceptable - it should be discussed in a well-sourced and even-handed manner, not kept silent to avoid tarnishing the glowing picture painted of Seaga. 82.176.221.176 (talk) 11:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Careful avoidance of subjects that paint Seaga in a negative light
Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 2/Workshop

message: Any movement forward here lately? SchmuckyTheCat 02:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Come to think of it, what is the progress here? I have not followed the development of this much, and I do wonder how I should join in the ArbCom process, if I decide to? (And which I believe I will soon too anyway).--Huaiwei 07:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

text: *I'd geuss just start adding evidence at the evidence page, and commentary in the sections of the workshop. User:Snowspinner is the advocate for my "side" if you wish to ask process questions. SchmuckyTheCat 15:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Talk:Battle of Winchelsea

message: The names used for this battle are completely confusing - The Oxford Illustrated History of the Royal Navy from 1995 uses "Les Espagnols sur Mer", and that's probably about as modern and authoritative as one can get for this. Eggenberger's Encyclopedia of Battles uses "Battle of Winchelsea".  Google's few matches are somewhat inconclusive. There are probably still some red links wandering around for even more alternate titlings... Stan 02:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: The lead says 47, the Background says 47 on the way out, but mentions that some English ships were then captured, which might have added to the total returning, and the Infobox says 40. Jmchutchinson (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent numbers for size of the Castilian fleet
Talk:Metal Arms: Glitch in the System

message: And took out some sections (story, glitches) that seemed more appropriate for a fan site of the game, not an encyclopedic overview. More edits should be made, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diff-chan (talk • contribs) 
:I agree, I edited the gameplay section to include only important information.  More edits in the future.ZappyGun (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: got rid of it

message: What game engine does Metal Arms use? --Filthy swine 23:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game Engine 

message: ok yeah can we have some one check this thing and add soem parts?"
Yes, I beat the game and I checked it and added some parts. It wasn't explained that not all bots could be hacked (only those with the open D-ports--the light on their backs) and that recruiter grenades only recruit those with open d ports. It also didn't explain that EMP grenades have a detrimental effect on glitch if he accidentally steps into one of his own. I fixed both of these along with minor other changes and general cleanup (grammar, spelling, etc.) of the article. 24.15.53.225 03:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  questions of editing 

message: I noticed this article is censored, unacceptable by Wikipedia censors, normally I'd remove it but I find the whole section quotes a bit unnecessary. So maybe we should remove the quotes or at the very least remove the censors. TostitosAreGross (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole "comedy" section seems unneeded, I'll try to find a way to either make it include only the notable information or, if there is none, delete "comedy" entirely. ZappyGun (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 02:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fuck vs. F*ck 

message: If no one has any time to improve this section, I will do it. Since this game is most likely NOT going to have a sequel, the least it should have is a good Wikipedia entry.
(Majorasminion (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Go to it.  I know I've already made a thousand comments on the talk for this page, but I must say this particular article has been FUBAR'd.  Assuming it was ever coherent to begin with, that is.  EDIT: I took a look at your edits.  Remember WP:GAMEGUIDE, this isn't gameFAQ's.—Preceding unsigned comment added by ZappyGun (talk • contribs) 02:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I plan on improving this section 

message: I'm not 100% sure of all the details of the story, but I think I got the general gist of it. If anyone feels like shortening it, editing it, whatever might be needed, feel free to do so. Might want to add a spoiler tag while you're at it, I covered the entire plot. PrinceForte (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot Expansion