lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Post-PFI Soviet/Russian aircraft projects

message: AboveTopSecret.com FORUM as a source. Are you fucking kidding me?! Removed. — NRen2k5 15:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: > Yakovlev's entry resembled the JSF entry from BAE, as it was a supersonic STOVL aircraft with a similar propulsion system to the JSF. <
To the contrary. It is well-known that Yakovlev bureau's original, genuine Yak-141 VTOL plane and engine design was purchased by the anglo-american alliance for 350 million USD during Yeltsin's reign. This is what became the F-35. This is one of the rare cases when the atlantide copied the russians, usually it was the other way around (B-29 --> Tu-4, Shuttle --> Buran, etc.) 91.83.4.102 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 21:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. I can remember a wide range of statements beginning "it is well known that...", which then proceeded into unsourced and frequently hysterically funny technological propaganda. It may be assumed, of course, that this could not possibly be an example of such? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  LFS nonsense 

message: Remove the sections PAK FA and FGFA from the article. The PAK FA started flight tests on January 29, 2010.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.61.237 (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates 

message: Apparently Iran was involved, is there any sources on this? Al Farwazirip (talk) 02:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Involvement of Iran
Talk:Poipet Municipality

message: Is Paoy Paet an alternative spelling of Poipet? Biscuittin (talk) 10:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they are alternative spellings but there may be a distinction between the town and the commune. Biscuittin (talk) 10:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Same place? 
Talk:John Weiss Forney

message: They appear to be the same person. --​​​​D​​tbohrer​​​​talk•contribs 02:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, no objection Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead)  04:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --​​​​D​​tbohrer​​​​talk•contribs 06:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: This merger may have been incorrect. While John Weiss Forney was Secretary of the U.S. Senate from 1861 to 1868, a particular Wein Forney was the State Librarian of Pennsylvania from 1863 to 1872http://www.statelibrary.pa.gov/Pages/Roster-of-State-Librarians.aspx. It's possible that two persons have been merged here who are in fact distinct. More research needs to be done to determine which facts belong to which person. 72.83.5.66 (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible <i>splitting</i> proposal 

message: He was a racist. 2601:282:167F:F00:0:0:0:A0C9 (talk) 05:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racist Man
Template talk:Escambia class fleet replenishment oiler

message: I removed  from the template because that ship was not an .  was originally scheduled to be AO-91, and would have been in the  Escambia class if it hadn’t been converted to a distilling ship. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of [[USS Pasig (AO-89)]] from template
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cornwall/Members

message: Hi ... I am offering a WEA course on Local History in Penryn, and have been invited to join the WikiProject Cornwall, which I am pleased to do.  I am not Cornish, but have lived in Cornwall since the turn of the Millennium, grew up in North Devon (which is much more similar to North Cornwall than anywhere in England), and lived in Plymouth for a number of years working for, amongst other organisations, the Devon and Cornwall Development Company.  I have always had an enthusiastic amateur interest in history, an encyclopaedic knowledge of irrlevant facts about the past, and a passion for the dynamics of how the peoples of these islands have evolved and why, especially in this unique peninsula in which I was born and brought up and now live, very happily.
Adrian Watts (talk) 11:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Battlefield UAV

message: I propose that Battlefield UAV be merged into Unmanned combat aerial vehicle because:
# the content in the Battlefield UAV article is already covered better under Unmanned combat aerial vehicle
# there will always be too much overlap between the two
# US specific material is already much better covered under Battlefield UAVs in the United States
# Battlefield UAV is not well developed anyway and should not divert resources away from  Unmanned combat aerial vehicle
PLEASE DISCUSS AT Talk:Unmanned combat aerial vehicle NOT HERE
Ex nihil (talk) 12:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 
Talk:Modern US endurance UAVs

message: this article is a pretty big mess, I don’t even think it’s necessary for it to exist NascarLarry (talk) 03:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I can agree with that, the article is not needed at all. Also, it looks more like a YouTube video script more than an encyclopedia article. RealNuclearFish (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

text: I concur, this article is messy in its entirety.  DragonEggLol (talk) 04:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete sh*t
Talk:Culver PQ-14 Cadet

message: This would be good merged with Culver CadetPetebutt (talk) 03:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: The book I have says that the gunners were strongly discouraged to actually TRY to hit the aircraft, as they were expensive ("woe be to the happless gunner that actually succeeded at hitting his target"), I believe it says. Hamiltons (?) Concise Guide to American Aircraft of WWII. Not to say that none were hit, but "most of them were blasted from the sky..." sounds a bit strong.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by .45Colt (talk • contribs) 22:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blasted
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Children With Leukaemia

message: We, at CHILDREN with LEUKAEMIA, would appreciate it if this article was not deleted. We are aware that it needs some work and will be updating it soon. The link to our website offers information and advice to leukaemia sufferers so information on our organisation would seem to be a valuable contribution to Wikipedia. (Zukeiz (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising".--Hu12 (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Caecidae

message: This article was based on the corresponding article in Powell A. W. B., New Zealand Mollusca, William Collins Publishers Ltd, Auckland, New Zealand 1979 , which is not compatibly licensed for Wikipedia. This article has been revised on this date as part of a large-scale project to remove infringement from these sources. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites 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, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. (For background on this situation, please see the related administrator's noticeboard discussion and the cleanup task force subpage.) Thank you.  -- Invertzoo (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: This article and WoRMS list Watsonia de Folin, 1880 as accepted, though WoRMS lists no species in the genus. I haven't been able to find much in a quick search, but it looks like Watsonia may be now treated as a subgenus of Parastrophia (and I assume Parastrophia elegans (de Folin, 1880) would have been the type species of Watsonia). I've created Watsonia (gastropod) as a redirect to Parastrophia, and will change the existing link on Caecidae to the DAB Watsonia to link to the gastropod title. I hope somebody with more mollusc expertise can figure out what's going on and make the appropriate clarifications. Plantdrew (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watsonia
Talk:Andrew Purvis

message: I started this article two years ago.  Since then it was vandalized, without anyone noticing.
I noticed because a bot told me it was an "unreferenced BLP".  So I restored it to just prior to the vandal started working.
FWIW the vandal seems to have been a practiced sort, who used two wiki-ids.
The vandal's first edit summary say: "these changes are because the original article, written by a Senad Slatina, who has been hired to defend the accused, is inaccurate in ascribing responsibility to Purvis's article."  Later edit summaries say: "deleting item because it was written by an interested party on the basis of inaccurate information in order to help argue a case before a military tribunal and distorts the truth." and "article is written by tendentious editor and is based on information that is not confirmable."
For the record, I am not a Bosnian.  My name is not Senad Slatina.  I was not hired by Belkacem's attorneys.  Geo Swan (talk) 07:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  explanation 

message: A POV tag has been placed atop the article as it appears to give greater prominence to one action than to the description of the person himself... and his actual claim to fame. The header itself sensationalizes the article, almost to the form of an indictment. Balance is needed in order for it to be kept. This is close be being called a POV fork. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag
Talk:Eli Todd

message: After a brief copyedit to clean up a few minor issues, I think the article meets the Good article criteria. It is well written, well-sourced, informative, and interesting. The lead could be expanded a bit, though. Also, does he have any publications? A listing of publications he authored might be worth adding to the article as well. Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review

message: - commented out from article.
The assertion that his sister committed suicide due to depression, which then prompted his interest in mental health, is too big an idea to be unsourced. If a source is located then by all means restore it, but without it, it should be excised. ♠PMC♠ 19:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commented out
Talk:Up An' Atom

message: This article claims: "'Up and at 'em,' meaning 'There is a lot of work to be done,'" Huh? Clearly someone went to Dictonary.com and misquoted the definition: "Get going, get busy, as in Up and at 'em—there's a lot of work to be done." In other words, they took the example sentence and used it for the definition as opposed to the definition itself. Kind of like looking up the definition of excited and seeing the usage example, "he was excited to see his team win" and then defining excited as "seeing his team win." BTW, punctuation usually goes inside the quotes. Oh well, at least some wikidiot didn't rewrite the article in UK English.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.129.224.141 (talk) 11:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Man, who wrote this?
Talk:Robert Neuwirth

message: VANITY PAGE!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.108.161 (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The phrase "His blog, Squatter City, offers an ongoing look at the phenomenon." is useless and cryptic since nobody knows to which phenomenon it refers. I suggest to suppress it, and replace it by a link towards the blog in the "external links" section.--Bretelle (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Blog link was already in ELs. I've replaced it with the bio page that leads to all 3 of his blogs. Other cleanup done too. Thanks for the suggestion.  – S. Rich (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useless phrase about Neuwirth's blog
Talk:List of aircraft of the Royal Australian Navy

message: As per the NHI MRH 90 wiki article, "Australia withdrew the type in 2023, well ahead of the planned retirement date of 2037". Should it remain in the "Present" table? 7ade (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I have finally moved it down, but because the the two sections use a different format it had to be modified to preserve the data. A75 (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update to NHI MRH 90
Talk:Atlas Aircraft Corporation

message: Atlas was founded to give SA a aviation industry, not to "primarily to circumvent the international arms embargo".125.236.202.112 (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for establishment
Talk:Sally Bedell Smith

message: Is she related to Walter Bedell Smith? Jhobson1 (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Twelve years on, I would repeat the question. If not, how did she acquire that name? Valetude (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family question 

message: I have removed the following - If anyone can find this interview elsewhere and can incorporate it back into the article, please do so: 
*Interview with Smith on "New Books in Biography"
Thanks to all, KConWiki (talk) 04:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed dead link from External links
Talk:Marysville, Indiana

message: Was this the town that Doc Holliday  was from in the eponymous film ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 23:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movie :"Doc Holiday" 
Talk:Canada men's national junior ice hockey team

message: 1976 was not viewed as official by the IIHF, does this mean their record includes pre-tournament games or other exhibitions?18abruce (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The record does include the first few unofficial tournaments (still organized by IIHF), however it does not include any subsequent pre-tournament or exhibition games. I think the current edit is fine but I would not have any problem with removing that loss and pre-1977 results. Nonc01 (talk) 06:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is fine in that it is consistent, just struck me as odd.18abruce (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  biggest loss?
Talk:BMW 132

message: Greater Romania Campaign over Stalingrad 1941-1943
.......................
Preparations
Source, Ministerul Fortelor Aerului R56 02478 BIBLOTECA 11.834/4, hence ,public domain,Library of Air Ministry of Romania, books?Aristiderazu (talk) 10:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greater Romania Campaign over Stalingrad 1941-1943 IAR-38 with BMW 132,700Hp
Talk:Junkers Jumo 223

message: I wanted to ad a photo of the Jumo 223, but the process is ways too complicated for me.I already wasted half an hour.
I keep the photo on my hard disk, if someone is courageous enough to post it here.
--Dovatf (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

message: As the article currently stands it says (with no reference) that only one engine was built.  Yet the Hugo Junkers site linked at the bottom says that eight engines were built http://www.hugojunkers.bplaced.net/junkers-jumo-223.html . Any idea which is correct?
Jpmaytum (talk) 10:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many engines built? 

message: A figure with four equal sides and four equal angles is not a rhomboid: it is a special case of a rhombus, most often called a square. All the pictures I have seen of the Jumo 223 seem to show right angles between adjacent banks - have I been fooled? 84.64.252.217 (talk) 10:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically you are correct. But many (most?) people think of a square as sitting flat on the ground looking like an × from the front rather than sitting balanced on one bank looking like a + .  Stepho  talk  05:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why rhomboid rather than square?
Talk:Steve Mirsky

message: I will be working on this page to expand it in January 2018. Please let me know if you have any ideas, concerns, references to cite, or photos to use. Thanks. --Milkshake60201 (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Call for input (obsolete as of 1/28/2018) 

message: I have recommenced the Bibliography section (first started in December 2014, but then deleted). Entries use cite templates. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. ISBNs and other persistent identifiers, where available, are commented out, but still available for reference. Links to potentially unreliable digitised copies may be removed. This is a work in progress; feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 05:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography
Talk:SMS Elsass

message: I just noticed that the figure given in the article (23,983,000 marks) is the one for SMS Braunschweig. Elsass was a bit more expensive with 24,373,000 marks. Since there is a reference to a reliable source (actually I use the same source here, but in German), I don't want to mess around here. Could anyone please check the figures and correct them? It looks to me as someone figured if one ship of a class costs such and such, all the others will too. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 05:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably, I was looking at the Braunschweig row by mistake. I'm sure the English version of Groener has the same figure as the German version, so go ahead and correct it. Thanks for catching the mistake. Parsecboy (talk) 11:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Same with SMS Hessen. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 12:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  building cost 

message: here and here. Parsecboy (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: The article says:
:Elsass returned to the Elbe from 5 December to 1 March 1915; during this period, she underwent periodic maintenance from 24 to 28 February.
According to the German Wikipedia Elsass took also part in the advance to Gotland (26-30. December 1914) and a few days later (6-9. January 1915.) covered a cruisers advancing to the Gulf of Finland. Only after these actions was she replaced to the Elbe.
Which Information is accurate? --Andreas (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The material here comes from Hildebrand et. al., the de.wiki article doesn't have citations, so I can't tell you where it comes from. As far as I'm aware, none of the IV Squadron ships took part in those operations, just the V Squadron and the Baltic cruiser division. Parsecboy (talk) 20:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Winter activity 1914-15
Talk:Ypsilanti Automotive Heritage Museum

message: The proper name is Ypsilanti Automotive Heritage "Museum", not collection.  This should probably be fixed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by  BVos  (talk • contribs)  16:10, 7 January 2008 
* Done. cmadler (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title
Talk:Alice Elinor Lambert

message: Did she ever marry? The article currently claims that she did, writing, 
These claims are unsourced, however. I have some sources that claim otherwise (my emphasis):
Are there any further sources saying one way or the other? Thanks, Tkbrett (✉) 00:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marriage? 

message: I have added the notability template to this page because I think it can be seriously questioned whether or not Lambert is a notable enough figure to warrant an entry.
As per WP:AUTHOR, an author is deserving of an entry if any of the following is true: 
As far as I can tell, Lambert meets none of these criteria. Her most notable aspect is her romance with Tom Thomson, which is covered in essentially the same depth on that page as it is here. The reliable sources that discuss her do not go into much more detail. Tkbrett (✉) 04:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability
Talk:Salamander (disambiguation)

message: I'm going to list the entries I cut during clean-up, to address the objection made in the edit history.
My general policy in removing entries from dab lists is that a disambiguation page is meant to help users navigate between existing articles that are legitimately referred to using the same word or phrase.
* The name of an Austro-Hungarian ship of the Drache class built in 1861 (Reason for removal: no article linked)
* A fireplace poker (Article doesn't mention "salamander", making this just a dictionary definition (and an unverified one))
* Salamander Shoes, a German shoe manufacturer (Not an existing article)
* Salamander web browser. a Web browser for Linux (Not an existing article)
* Salamander (or Salamandro) is one of the elemental spirits in the Seiken Densetsu series. (Article doesn't mention "salamander", making this just a dictionary definition (and an unverified one))
* "Old Salamander" was a nickname given to Admiral David Glasgow Farragut, famous for proclaiming "Damn the torpedoes!", for his great naval exploits during the American Civil War.  (The article says nothing about this nickname)
* Salamander is the name of one of the main armies in Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card. (Article doesn't mention this army by name; if there is an article offering further information on this context, it should be linked)
* Asbestos when described by Marco Polo is called "Salamander" (This appears to be junk)
However, I'll add these three links back in, since the first one does actually talk about a Salamander broiler and was an oversight on my part, and the latter two have internal links and are therefore allowed by MOS:DP.
* A type of broiler
* A British warship – HMS Salamander
* Salamander Books, publisher 
If there's further objection to removing any of these, please discuss it here instead of reverting all cleanup. Propaniac (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cut entries
Talk:Minister for Publicity

message: I propose that either the article be renamed Ministry for Publicity so it agrees with the first sentence which states, "...was the name of a department in the Government", or that the first sentence be reworded to, "The Minister for Publicity was the name of a position in the Government". In either case, the repeated word "government" must be removed in the process; this is how it reads now: "a government department in the Government". — O'Dea (talk) 15:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have amended it to use 'position'. Snappy (talk) 14:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal