lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Earth Sound Research

message: I recently bought an Earth Sound Research amplifier and I have tried finding information on them, though it is very hard. I've found this page, http://earth.ampage.org/ which is devoted to this brand, and on different guitar and bassrelated sites I've found topics regarding the brand. But that is it. The information on this brand is very limited and often something someone heard from somewhere, nothing definitive, though I think it is important with this article, so people at least know that it is a real brand and not just some copycat firm (even though they apparently did copy the design of known brands.)194.239.215.55 (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: don't we think?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.101.136 (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  unencyclopedic
Talk:Oakley railway station (Hampshire)

message: Was the official name of this station "Oakley (Hampshire)" or just "Oakley"? If the latter, then I'd suggest a less ambiguous name for this article would be "Oakley railway station, Hampshire". --Dr Greg (talk) 12:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave it this name as I thought it was common practice in the case of stations which share the same name; see, for example, the Bramptons and the Garstons. It's not pretty I know, but it seems to be the way things are done! Ravenseft (talk) 13:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that is only my opinion. I have raised this question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Station disambiguation, so let's see what anyone else thinks. --Dr Greg (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of station
Talk:Aretha Franklin discography

message: Is it possible to have also uk charts positions for her albums, and the album chart performances on the Usa black album chart and r&b/hip hop albums? [23:00, 24 January 2008 by 91.80.153.173]
:I'm not sure I understand the significance of your question. Yes, of course it is "possible to have also uk charts positions ... ", etc., but where is the data coming from, and who is going to enter it?  (P.S. Please remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).) Pdfpdf (talk) 12:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification.  (By-the-way: I can assure you that your English is much better than my Italian!) Pdfpdf (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Charts 

message: Namely, CHAIN OF FOOLS was on Columbia label, not Atlantic.  I clearly remember that from my days as Music Director and weekend DJ at WBRS radio in East Lansing, Michigan.  In addition, one of your other articles got it right in their write-up of her career. Lovingthesixties (talk) 04:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in singles list 

message: is there any estimations out there for Arethas sales?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombo671 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worldwide record sales
Talk:Rolls-Royce 20 hp (1905)

message: The conversion of MPH to km/h is incorrect on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_20_hp_%281905%29
I don't have the data to correct it - just a flag-up.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.250.248 (talk) 07:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Rolls-Royce 30 hp

message: Very strange footnoting that will take a bit to unravel and try to find new true references to replace these. The existing references are more like footnotes which I will insert into the text to not lose them. Be patient of jump right in. --Akrasia25 (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately you've made the citations even less likely to have page numbers. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Slipknot/AoF

message: Please put your username and timestamp beside the article you are voting for. Example: ##~~~~, more information can be found on the How To page.
Voting is now open for the next AoF, please post your votes below.
#.5: The Gray Chapter Kevon100  Talk! Mail  19:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes

message: Hey, I made templates. Check them out:  and  —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 03:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like them. Sweet man! Blackngold29 (talk) 04:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't design them myself, I just transformed the Wikiproject Alternative Music templates. But thank you! —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 04:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates 

message: I just have a quick question, before we start a new AoF, shouldn't we try promoting the past articles to a better status? Slipknot needs a copyedit, bigtime. Slipknot needs a copyedit, and Slipknot discography should go to FLC. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 22:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, promotion should be dealt with before we start working on another AoF. Thanks for reading, ThunderMaster <SUP> UTC </SUP> 08:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So do you guys think that after the discography is removed from focus we should have a "Promotion Period" in which the project focuses it's attention on attaining higher status for articles within the project's scope? For example, in this one we could focus on Slipknot (album) and Slipknot discography and maybe Slipknot (band). Rezter TALK 10:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes. I think that would be a good idea. If we keep going on with new AoF projects, we will have a backlog of terrific articles that are not at a better status. I think we should definatly start off with getting Slipknot (band) to FA. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 21:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We should try to spend longer on articles to get them to their best before we let them leave AoF (or get them some sort of promotion). Thanks for reading, ThunderMaster <SUP> UTC </SUP> 09:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promoting
Talk:Benadiri people

message: This article appears to have been copied from another source, and therefore like violates Wikipedia's policy on Copyright violations. See Wikipedia:Copyright violations. It may be deleted unless copyright information is provided. Also, there are no references provided. Ground Zero | t 13:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you feel action is necessary, please revert to a previous version rather than deleting the whole article. Gailtb (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prose 

message: This edit added a large amount of information to the article.  Unfortunately, it is unattributed.  I've reverted to an earlier version. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  February 2010 
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Slipknot/AoF/howto

message: To nominate an article just put # ~~~~ beside it.
Example:
# Iowa (album) - ~~~~
Result:
# Iowa (album) - Rezter TALK 13:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominating 

message: All the nominated articles will be put in a list. All you have to do to vote is put ## ~~~~ beside it.
Example:
# Iowa (album)
##~~~~
Result:
# Iowa (album)
## Rezter TALK 14:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voting
Talk:Inexhaustible Chalice

message: I don't know how to edit texts directly, as this is my first time to suggest an edit. The word 'Theotokos' in the second paragraph should explain that this refers to the Mother of God <http://orthodoxwiki.org/Theotokos/>; also it would be helpful, as this is a discussion of an icon of our Lady in the Russian tradition, to give her her Slavonic name, 'Богородица', transliterated 'Bogoroditsa' <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theotokos#Etymology_and_translation/>.94.173.202.21 (talk) 08:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:2-Heptanone

message: Bo0404 (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: Is there a reason that you've chosen not to post a ChemBox with this entry?--ChemSpiderMan (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just by the nature of Wikipedia, articles are generally created in a haphazard way.  Chemicals articles often start out with just a sentence or two, or like this one with just a collection of data that someone cut-and-pasted from the MSDS.  Sometimes it takes a while before a chemist comes along and cleans it up, adds a chembox, etc.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Gotcha...once I am through the structure validation exercise I will start contributing with ChemBoxes for new articles as they show up. I can dig a lot of the information directly out of CHemSpider and validate it. It's a few weeks away before I can do that though.--ChemSpiderMan (talk) 14:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No ChemBox
Talk:Fort Ruby

message: Photos and/or photo uploads are needed.
*HABS photos may be available for this site.
*NRHP photo linked in article was taken by NPS employee, hence may be public domain and then could be used.
*New photos would be helpful.
There are more photos on US Fish and Wildlife and Humboldt National Forest sites. Magic♪piano 19:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos
Talk:Blood and War

message: I have replaced the redirect to Christopher Stasheff with the article and added additional references.  I can only assume that the previous edit that replaced this article with a redirect to author of one of the contained stories is because the editor believed that the article was not notable enough to stand alone, but that those who are looking for this anthology really want information on Stasheff.  While I will concede that this anthology is not the most notable of books, and is perhaps on the edge of notability, it is published by a major trade publisher and is not a vanity publication.  If it is notable enough to redirect to one of the authors, I would think that the article with links to all of the authors would be far more useful.  I am puzzled as to why Stasheff was chosen over the editor.--Rtrace (talk) 00:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Replacement with redirect
Talk:Bulk email software

message: MailChimp is its own entity. It's a unique organization/business/software. Though it IS a bulk email software, the two terms are not synonymous. It would be like redirecting F-16 to "Military Hardware"--while an F-16 is a piece of military hardware, it is its own unique entity fully deserving of its own article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.80.47 (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: (Fixed non-functional wikilink in Startswithj's post above.)--Shantavira|feed me 15:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  MailChimp should not be redirected to here 

message: Life's too short to keep an eye on this, but if someone does care, it needs attention so the manufacturers and users of spam software don't keep editing it to say of _course_ what they do isn't spam. Pinkbeast (talk) 07:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bleh 

message: Hi
I'm absolutely new to "adding content" to Wikipedia.
I'd like to add a link to a valuable page (a comparison of 128 bulk email software providers) but I didn't know if and where I could add this link.
The link to the site would be: http://revarder.com/email-provider-comparison/
It's a page with 128 providers and 23 filters so that visitors can find a provider within seconds.
Thanks for your help,
Gabor  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revarder (talk • contribs) 17:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:EL.  However, also (and first) see WP:SPAM and WP:COI. General Ization Talk    17:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question
Talk:Cross level

message: From what little content there is in this article, "cross level" appears to be just another name for "cant" (or "superelevation"). If that is the case, this article should redirect to Cant (road/rail). If not, clarification is needed. –Signalhead < T > 20:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Now redirected. Z22 (talk) 04:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition?
Talk:Legal research in the United States

message: The problem with this article is stated right in its very text: it's a "process-oriented article." That is a facial violation of WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal." As this mess has been marked for cleanup since 2009 and nothing has happened in eight years, it's clear that no one has the time, energy, or inclination to rewrite this mess from scratch. Any objections before I nominate this for deletion? --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It is inappropriate in setting out to be a guidebook, and if it is to be preserved, it would have to be extensively re-written. To the extent there is any useful information in this article, it could be incorporated into Legal research or List of sources of law in the United States. --LegalSkeptic (talk) 12:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree too. It is a tutorial on how to get by without Lexis or WestLaw, and it's not the sort of thing Wikipedia is meant for. --Rajulbat (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

text: Nothing done on this, either? I have cleaned it up a bit; some of its content is useful. Arllaw (talk) 22:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That's precisely the problem. As the above-quoted section from WP:NOT indicates, Wikipedia is not supposed to be "useful" in and of itself. That element of WP:NOT helps to prevent mission creep. We have Wikibooks for people who want to write an open-source textbook on legal research. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: By the same token that information should not be included "solely because it is true or useful", information should not be deleted from Wikipedia merely because it is useful. As  indicates,  should this article be deleted, there is content in this article that could be incorporated into other articles. Arllaw (talk) 05:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose I should rephrase my original comment and clarify that to the extent there is encyclopedic information in this article, it should be incorporated into other articles. The article is still an inappropriate how-to guide. LegalSkeptic (talk) 01:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think this train wreck of an article needs to be deleted
Talk:Ken Wriedt

message: Sources are disagreeing whether he died Sunday 17th or Monday 18th.  His family's death notice in The Age said quite unequivocally "died 18 October".  As does this, published Tuesday 19th - "died early yesterday".  But other online sources are saying he died on "Sunday" , or "Sunday night" ,.  
I'm favouring the "early Monday morning 18th October" theory.  --  Jack of Oz  ... speak! ...  19:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are probably right. We could change the article to the 18th. When the Tasmanian Parliamentary bio gets updated we can look at what they say and fix if necessary. Barrylb (talk) 01:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Although according to http://www.aph.gov.au/house/info/votes/rvpp006.pdf the PM moved "That the House record its deep regret at the death on 17 October 2010...".  Doesn't mean it is correct but they said it. Barrylb (talk) 01:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they said it.  This thread is already focussing on the issue that some sources give one date, and others give another date.  What we need is not just more sources that give one or other of these dates, but something that gives us reason to believe that a particular date is the correct one.  --  Jack of Oz  ... speak! ...  03:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of death
Talk:Japanese post in Korea

message: I feel like the title implies an inclusion of the postal system post-1905, yet the current article implies 1876–1905. Either a rename or a rescope in the article should eventually happen (if it ever does) toobigtokale (talk) 08:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is not an area I really know anything about but Korea under Japanese rule appears to indicate you are correct that expansion is needed beyond 1905. If you can find sufficient sources and are willing to take it on you can certainly do this to the betterment of the article. Your edit contributions certainly show you have the experience for this. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 10:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm unlikely to take it up; not really in my interest area and my todo list is long. Just bringing it to the attention of future readers. toobigtokale (talk) 10:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's a pity but I disagree with your reassessment as a stub class article which generally applies to an article of just a few sentences, so start-class is correct for now. I will revert that. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 11:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Stub class also measures number of sources. This has just one source to a single claim. Think of an extreme example; what if an article is really really long but only has one source on a single sentence? This is a stub; it's also not even that long in the first place. toobigtokale (talk) 11:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article scope
Talk:SYN flood

message: Article says SYN flood can be mitigated by "limiting the number of new connections from a source per timeframe"
This assumes that flooder is actually using their own IP address in the source fields -- not really a requirement.  The source IP address can be spoofed on the SYN packet.
The article claims that SYN floods don't work on modern networks, which is absolute crap. It's actually quite rare for a website to be able to handle a large SYN flood.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.74.34 (talk) 05:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's only due to wrong strategies and configs...you need to handle TCP flooding in the app servers, not in the firewall, otherwise it becomes a 1-point-of-failure (or you need batteries of firewalls for nothing...allright: I'm talking about a load-balanced dedicated server system and not some cheap virtual hosting where you may be on the same server like the attacked page: then your hoster needs batteries of firewalls to protect 1 tiny server ;). And a huge backlog plus a lot of RAM each server is necessary, too, but if you have it together with a 9 sec SYN-TTL I really see no problems, sry. --178.197.236.114(talk) 22:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: mitigation

message: The article states:
"but because modern TCP/IP stacks do not have the above mentioned bottleneck, there should be little or no difference between a SYN flood and any other channel capacity-based attack"
There is no source for this opinion, and the only actual reference (RFC 4987), published in August 2007, is far from making such a strong assertion, especially since many solutions involve routers and firewalls and not the TCP/IP stack implementation. In fact, it only states that (section 2.1, History):
   "The community quickly developed many widely differing techniques for
   preventing or limiting the impact of SYN flooding attacks.  Many of
   these have been deployed to varying degrees on the Internet, in both
   end hosts and intervening routers.  Some of these techniques have
   become important pieces of the TCP implementations in certain
   operating systems, although some significantly diverge from the TCP
   specification and none of these techniques have yet been standardized
   or sanctioned by the IETF process."
So I suggest to remove the statement or else to provide some verifiable source  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.149.250.237 (talk) 12:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  implementations mitigating and not solving the problem 

message: See other Wikipedia pages on this distinction: TCP half-open and Embryonic connection.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.107.141.2 (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  connection should be described as embryonic, not half-open 

message: There should be some links that provide information on how to migrate the attack.
Any links to an open-source example would be appreciated.(on both the attack and how to migrate it.)(SourceForge.net or GitHub link would be nice.)
FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links and references needed
Talk:Sardinian Anglo-Arab

message: Merged the "AAS" article in, as we previously also had an article titled "Sardinian Anglo-Arab" that was merged here as well.  All seem to be the same horse.  I think Giara's Horse may e the "Sardinian pony" referenced here and am cross-linking as such for now until we have more data.  Montanabw(talk) 05:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible copyright problem
Talk:Shadbelly

message: There is a dreadful tendency in American English to call ANY type of formal dress a "tuxedo". Worse still - a "tux". However, the dinner jacket (British English for tuxedo) is derived from the lounge suit or smoking jacket. It has no historical relationship to the dress coat/tailcoat/swallowtail coat/shadbelly whatsoever. A dinner jacket is not a dress coat (see tailcoat) without tails - that is a Spencer jacket aka a mess jacket. 
There are a wide variety of types of formal dress and "informal dinner clothes" ie a dinner suit is one of these. Yet, many Americans call any type of formal dress for any occasion a "tux". Even daytime formal dress is called a "tux" by many. Traditionally, Americans also had proper divisions and names for different types of formal dress rather than just calling absolutely everything a "tux".
Sator  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sator (talk • contribs) 07:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we're cretans.  I admit it!  LOL!  I'm rephrasing the article  bit to make the terminology clear but to keep to the point of the shadbelly.   At least horse people don't call it a "tux."  Montanabw(talk) 06:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)