lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:7.62 Tkiv 85

message: No move Parsecboy (talk) 13:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article reads TKIV stands for "tarkkuuskivääri henkilömaaleja vastaan" (Finnish: precision rifle, anti-personnel purpose). The TKIV term is also used as part of the official nomenclature of all other currently used precision rifles (7.62 TKIV Dragunov,  8.6 TKIV 2000 and ) by the Finnish Defence Forces, so TKIV is a describing abbrevation for a precision rifle. When 7.62 Tkiv 85 is googled several internet sources in Finnish emerge that almost exclusively use the TKIV abbrevation in capitals. Of course the Finnish and their writing preferences have nothing to do with Wikipedia or its guidelines.--Francis Flinch (talk) 07:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's certainly derived from an abbreviation, but isn't it now a series designation? If so, shouldn't it be treated as a brand name? Andrewa (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: TKIV = tarkkuuskivääri = precision rifle. Precision rifle is a less martial, and I think a rather good, description of what EN Wikipedia terms as a sniper rifle. There are lots of brands of precision rifles, so TKIV is no brand name (for example 7.62 TKIV Dragunov = SVD rifle, 8.6 TKIV 2000 = TRG-42, 12.7 TKIV 2000 = Barrett M82) but an FDF designation for their various precision rifles. I am no Wikipedia conventions expert, but would it not be a nice idea to follow Finnish nomenclature in this case?--Francis Flinch (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to say no. Our policy here is to follow English usage. Andrewa (talk) 00:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This got me to think regarding this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Acronyms_and_initialisms. If you think to leave it I can live with that.--Francis Flinch (talk) 10:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

text: *Curses, too late! :P Jafeluv (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Never to late. I proposed the move for consistency. It is an abbreviation. Koalorka (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: do not move. This move request has been here 8 deys. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *Curses, too late! :P Jafeluv (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Never to late. I proposed the move for consistency. It is an abbreviation. Koalorka (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Move?

message: I would have changed the picture, but didn't know how.
Here's a picture of the Tarkkuuskivääri 85 from the Finnish Defence Forces website
http://www.puolustusvoimat.fi/wcm/4a7e70804c69ed15b94cbfcf0085d067/DSC00829.JPG?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=4a7e70804c69ed15b94cbfcf0085d067  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TKIVS (talk • contribs) 08:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The picture of the rifle is wrong: pictured is an older rifle Model 76, not the model 85
Talk:Italian Owl pigeon

message: Is the Damascene pigeon shares very similar physical characteristics as the Italian Owl pictured in this article?  besides the fact they are the same class as a pigeon? somebody provide more details..thanks! PEACE OUT! - P!g3on1!
:I'm not completely sure that I understand your question but having seen both Damascenes and Italian Owls I can tell you that they are quite different pigeons even if it's not apparent from the pictures which are posted here.--Onorio (talk) 12:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Damascene similarity?
Talk:Voorburg Shield Cropper

message: Name of the breed is "Voorburg Shield Cropper": 
* The Voorburg Shield Cropper: NPA Standard: http://www.pigeoncote.com/standards/voorburg/npavoor.html
* http://www.norwichcropper.com/Voorburg/voorburgshieldcropperclub/Standard.html
* EE-List of the breeds of fancy pigeons (ELFP) (revision 01-12-2013) Authorized and published by the Section for Fancy pigeons of the European Association of Poultry-, Pigeon- and Rabbit breeders (Entente Européenne d’ Áviculture et de Cuniculture)
* NPA (UK): http://nationalpigeonassociation.co.uk/download/i/mark_dl/u/4006349691/4589998547/RingSizeList2013.pdf
* others
--PigeonIP (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name
Talk:Taiyuan Satellite Launch Center

message: :Regarding the template  used on this page, please join the discussion at Template talk:Spaceport#Shorter names.
:(sdsds - talk) 23:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shorter names in Spaceport template 
Talk:AN/PEQ-2

message: I can't make 'ead nor tail of what is going on here.
The thing in the article replaced the other thing, designed after Gulf War 1 in the Nineties.
Which one ?
Which one was designed in the early Nineties? This thing or the other? And if the other, then when was this thing designed?
This is not a good article, fellas. We need to work this. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:ED5F:5DCA:4067:D15C (talk) 12:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  History dates an ting
Talk:Armscor M16 22

message: The original Armscor (Squires Bingham Model 20) was a conventional .22 hunting rifle made in the Philippines. In the United States market, it competed against the established Ruger 10/22 and Marlin Model 70. To improve its appeal, the Model 20 action and barrel were stocked and styled to mimick the appearance of the military M16 and AK-47 rifles and marketed as the Armscor M1600 and as the Armscor AK22 respectively. Like the original Squires Bingham Model 20, the accuracy and reliability are reasonable for hunting or informal target practice. The Armscor M1600 and AK22 are not replicas of the M16 or AK-47, share no parts in common, and have enough differences to make their value for military training questionable. The resemblance is purely cosmetic.
Honestly an article on the original Squires Bingham Model 20 should be started and Armscor M1600 and Armcor AK22 merged into the article as subsections. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin
Talk:Bergmann MG 15nA machine gun

message: How does this weapon relate to the MG 08/15? There is no specific mention of the MG 08/15 in the article and it would improve the article to clarify that relationship or lack of.--TGC55 (talk) 03:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  MG 08/15? 

message: Julisz Powałkiewicz "Broń Konspiracyjna, Warszawskie Termopile 1944" 
Copyright by Fundacja "Warszawa Walczy 1939-1945", Warsaw 2005
ISBN 83-11-10548-0
Page 88 shows this weapons WWIIEnjoyer (talk) 13:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible use by Polish underground
Talk:Jauharabad

message: there is a workers welfare school which is vey good.the fomous student is muhammad zafar he is studying at lahore at comsats institute of it lahore.
At least try to write good sentences. You should have verified them from someone learned before posting here. Writing wrong doesn't leave good impression to external community 
~Shahzad  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.52.13.102 (talk) 18:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

message: That was missed by wikipedia about the information of jauharabad distt. khushab 
there is a campus of university of education lahore and offer the following course 
BBA
B.ED
M.A ENGLISH
PGD.COMPUTER SOFTWERE  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.13.36 (talk) 10:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION LAHORE SUB CAMPUS  

message: Arsalazeem (talk) 11:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progressiveness 

message: First of all, there are NO sources whatsoever cited in the main article. There are grammar and spelling errors all over the place. This article desperately needs cleanup. We also need to find reliable sources for all the information and cite them where they are needed. --🎼Yexstorm2001🎼 (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You're absolutely welcome to fix any of these issues: the ground is yours! – Uanfala (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is a mess
Talk:Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument

message: I specifically stipulate that the existence of facts in these published books, journals, and other articles listed in the References section qualify as relevant and reliable sources to the use of and validity of the Herrmann Brain Dominance InstrumentTM (HBDITM).  If we need to add links for these references, I will be more than happy to locate and add them.
(Brenda D. Weaver 19:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disagree with Deletion 

message: I'm confused as to what validation actually means and then how EduMetrics would actually re-validate or refute claims of non-validity. Currently that whole paragraph is a puzzle to me. It also has some POV issues, the citation titled "validated" merely points into the HBDI official web site. Could someone please instead find the original publication by Dr. Bunderson. Also, linking to his personal biography on the EduMetrics site is not relevant. The content in that paragraph about the systems' critics and their own POV is great, as is his daughter taking on the reigns. All that reads encyclopedic and neutral. But the content about "validation" really needs some help. Any experts here that can help with that? My first impulse was to delete all of it or reword it merely as a discussion of disagreement between researchers as to it's value as a system. Then I'd move the sentence about his daughter out to a new section or to the top section somewhere. And for the record, I'm blue/yellow/red (A/C/D) in this system. But perhaps I'm being more green (B) in being this precise about things. :) - Owlmonkey (talk) 01:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, since no one had any comments I'm going to excise some pieces. Please comment here about any changes I've made. I'm watching this page currently. - Owlmonkey (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Validation? 

message: has been amending the article today, watering down any referenced critical content. I suspect COI and will revet anything which was unreferenced later. I dropped a note on the user's page, but they do not appear to wish to speak. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Here comes the COI

message: Changes by User:Bluegreenredyellow appear to me to whitews the article by changing "claimed" type terminology to categorical terminology. I have advised the user to provide reliable sources before repeating the changes. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bluegreenredyellow
Talk:Colt Trooper

message: If someone can provide a reliable source for the content from this former stub, then perhaps it should be mentioned here as a modification/prototype. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not found in any official literature by Colt. I am guessing this was a prototype made in someone else's machine shop.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 10:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It wouldn't be found in any Colt literature since it was never more than a prototype, but it does exist although I'm not inclined to dig up any of the sources I've seen on it. The revolver used gases from the barrel, like a semi auto, to drive a piston through the middle of the cylinder yoke which caused the cylinder to spin and cock the revolver. This was a Colt developed piece, but information on it is thin at best and it never moved beyond prototype stage. Someone would need to be pretty dedicated to find real info on one. Syr74 (talk) 03:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colt Trooper Automatic 

message: A portion of this article mentions that the Mk V frame was 'slightly smaller' than the Mk III frame that came before it and is, roughly, similar in size to the K Frame S&W. Both of these statements are inaccurate, one grossly so. Addressing the latter, not only is the Mk V frame larger and heavier than the S&W K frame, it is slightly larger and heavier than the S&W L Frame, which is itself a larger and heavier development of the K frame. As such the Colt Mk V frame is notably larger than is a K frame S&W. Addressing the former, the Mk V frame is essentially the Mk III frame with an improved, short-action lock-work including a slightly revised grip-frame to make room for a longer mainspring. In terms of size a Mk III Colt and a Mk V Colt are, effectively, identical.Syr74 (talk) 03:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "uncited; unneeded section breaks; wp:promo cited to a personal web site; tone down flowery language". --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit
Talk:Dragunov SVU

message: No offense is intended to the original author, but it currently contains clumsy wording and several inaccuracies.  When I get some more time I may attempt to repair it, but for now this is what I see:
1. The history is not particularly specific or even accurate, the third link gives a much more detailed account.
2. 150 decibels of noise reduction is not even possible; the muzzle report is maybe 150 decibels total.  "Good" suppressors can achieve as high as 35-40 decibel reduction (MP-5SD); perhaps it was a typo and 15 db was intended?
3. "...the center of gravity was increased by the addition of a forward extended bipod..." Doesn't make any sense.  The weight is increased to be sure; perhaps, "The weapon's balance was improved by the addition of a bipod forward of the grip" was the intended meaning.  Bullpups are notorious for having odd or "poor" balance".
4. 20 round magazines appear to have been developed, but have never been seen in service; the third link once again comes in handy claiming that they were never adopted.  30 round is highly unlikely, even as an experiment: 30 rounds of 7.62x54R is a huge mag (most high power .30 rifles only have 20) and would be very heavy, making the balance even worse.
5. "Better optics were incorporated..." and then the next paragraph says PSO-1 which is the standard scope of the SVD and has been for many decades.  In addition, there is a wiki for the PSO-1 so discussing details about it here is unnecessary.
6. The rates of fire given are also misleading.  The select fire version is fully automatic; its cyclic rate of fire is probably more like 500-600 rpm.  Where does this 30 and 5 come from?  Is this aimed shots per minute?  If so, what does "automatic mode" have to do with it?
I'm not an expert on this weapon, but that's what I can read from the links, plus general knowledge of firearms.  If someone with first hand knowledge can shed some insight, please do so.  A rewrite to make it more accurate based on my knowledge would likely gut it and not leave much behind-- I can tell what's wrong, but I don't have anything to put in its place.  Nwilde (talk) 04:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic article clean up
Talk:EMP 44

message: "It passed all of the German ordinance tests, but because of its outlandish and cheap appearance, it was not adopted by the German armed forces.[1]"
:Hahaha. I looked at the picture and well understood the concerns of army officials. :-)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.237.243.76 (talk) 04:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments
Talk:Australian Super Touring Championship

message: 1986 and 1987 were both Group A regulated not Supertouring - the two are not really related. --Falcadore 07:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Fanning (firearms)

message: How can this be an automatic mode of fire? It sounds even more manual than usual. 124.186.84.47 07:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automatic? 

message: specify which?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.214.63 (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  TV series 

message: Bob Graham, a native of Cut-n-Shoot, Texas (a small town with a population of 809 in 2001) and a World Champion in Fast Draw competition in 3 consecutive decades, customizes (and strenghtens) single action revolvers for fanning and fast draw shooting. He has demonstrated the ability to fan Colt Frontier Model single action revolvers chambered in 45 Long Colt while shooting accurately. While it is more difficult than it appears on television, it is nonetheless possible.
Write2topcat (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fanning a Colt 6-gun as shown in at least one TV series is quite impossible in practice.
Talk:Firearm modification

message: This sounds much like something a non-native speaker, or a machine translator would come up with.  I think I'll re-write it, with quick descriptions of various modifications and links to the full articles, along with some caveats as to legal issues (such as NFA regulations).  scot (talk) 14:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortening the cannon?
Talk:Eueriio

message: I've marked the reference to Ptolemy with {fact} as the original text said that Ptolemy's account dated from c.325 B.C., however that date is about 400 years before Ptolemy was born. --sony-youthpléigh 22:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ptolemy 

message: As part of the recent cleanup, the "guts" of this article now deal with the Iverni, their "arrival" in Ireland, Ptolemy's writings on them, and the derivation of "Hibernia" from "Ivernia". 
The articles titular subject, Eueriio (Ostensibly the Iverni's label for their home) is just a subtext.
To my mind the main content of this article should therefore either be merged to Iverni or (with some further tweaking) be merged with O'Rahilly's historical model (or some other article which generally discusses the "ancient tribes of Ireland").
Thoughts? Guliolopez 13:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge?
Talk:Office of Commercial Space Transportation

message: I'm reverting the edits to the opening on responsibility, because the original wording was more accurate. The current version would be confusing to readers in the United States, because the word "state" is commonly used to refer to places like California or Alabama -- however in the 1967 Treaty, it is used to refer to countries. The United States is one of 98 countries that are "State Parties to the Treaty."
Excerpt from 1967 Treaty:
Article VI
States Parties to the Treaty shall bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, [...], whether such activities are carried on by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities, [...]. (i.e. citizens and corporations)
Article VII
Each State Party to the Treaty that launches or procures the launching of an object into outer space, [...], and each State Party from whose territory or facility an object is launched, is internationally liable for damage to another State Party to the Treaty [...].
A decent summary of this is "The nationality of the launch operator and the location of the launch determines which country is responsible for any damage that occurs."
Michael (talk) 09:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "States" bearing responsibility 
Talk:Saturn (rocket family)

message: This article seems to be well rooted in historical fact. Even though the Saturn programs were originated by the von Braun group at Huntsville, this article seems less compromised by the sort of exaggerated expression of the German contribution to U.S. rocketry that plagues most other article on U.S. space launch vehicles. At least this article acknowledges that Atlas and Titan were primarily the product of largely independent Air Force programs that went on to benefit the Saturn programs--as opposed to the popular misconception that the reverse was true. Let us hope that as the article progresses, proper credit continues to be given to unique U.S. contributions to rocketry without someone pushing the tiresome "everything came out of Germany" theory of rocket development.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magneticlifeform (talk • contribs) 09:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Off to a Good Start 

message: In the current version of the page, the designation "Super-Juno" is introduced abruptly in the section Sputnik stuns the world. Until then, only the term "Super-Jupiter" is used. Are these two terms synonymous? If not, what are differences?
Over at Encyclopedia Astronautica, the only mention of "Super Juno" is on the entry for the Jupiter IRBM:
On the other hand, there are multiple references to Super-Jupiter and its evolution into Juno V, chief among them being the one in the entry on Super-Jupiter:
In the entry for Juno V-A:
Is the term "Super Juno" actually a reference to "Juno V" or is it a reference to the original design in ABMA's Proposal: A National Integrated Missile and Space Vehicle Development Program? If latter, how does it differ from "Super-Jupiter"? - wneo (talk) 10:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Super-Juno and Super-Jupiter
Talk:Harper's Ferry flintlock pistol

message: If this article is supposed to be discussing the pistol that is used as the MP symbol in the US Army, it needs to be renamed to Harper's Ferry Model 1806, and reflect the fact that that pistol was a .54 caliber weapon.  Information from the US Army Military Police School history and symbols page. --Vidkun (talk) 23:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  rename needed 

message: This article states that there was no difference in the design from 1805 through 1808 (I am not an expert and don't know whether this is so.) 
But there may be a problem in the Military Police Corps (US Army) section on heraldic items which also says Model 1805. — Robert Greer (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Harpers Ferry Model 1805]] vs. [[Harpers Ferry Model 1806]]
Talk:Keemun

message: It is news to me that any form of Camellia Sinensis is a Drupe.  I think the sentence about 'characteristic stone fruit' should be removed. 2602:306:83C8:4F0:59FB:39DB:BF54:92A5 (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Stone Fruit?

message: What temperature of water is traditionally used in China to brew this tea? Badagnani 08:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Temperature of water

message: It's popular in England, but it's known that black tea is not nearly as popular as green, oolong, or pu'erh. What is the relative popularity in China of keemun, and Chinese-produced black teas in general, in contrast to the other (non-black) varieties? Badagnani 08:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Popularity in China

message: "Infusion" in the box needs to be fixed. Badagnani 17:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Need fix

message: These references should be removed. They are not objective references but merely advertisements.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.152.169.150 (talk) 02:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  References
Talk:Coxsackie B virus

message: User 96.251.110.185 raised concerns that this section might be based on misinterpreted information; I've removed it entirely pending fact checking, since it doesn't seem to be vital to the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docben (talk • contribs) 11:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concern about accuracy of Viral Structure section 

message: — Assignment last updated by CraftWyvern (talk) 15:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Virology 2022