lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:The Bachelor of Arts

message: i have removed the first line of the final paragraph, since i think there is not much reference to the british raaj in the novel - Kanagasabai 08:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:National Security Whistleblowers Coalition

message: The article was missing the most important link: http://www.nswbc.org Mathiastck 13:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing a link

message: I just checked out the organization's website, and all articles and news references stop in 2007. That's five years ago. Does that mean this organization is no longer active? __meco (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it inactive?
Talk:Beechcraft T-34 Mentor

message: Why was the T-34 not assigned a unique designation code by the US Navy? Drutt (talk) 04:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: US Navy

message: Türkiye should be shown as a military operator. 68.160.250.220 (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map Update
Talk:Nikolai Ladovsky

message: The article badly needs a properly referenced date of death - not for its own sake, but for establishing copyright status of Ladovsky's work. According to the recent changes in legislation (at least in the version upheld at Commons), if he died prior to 22.06.1941 - it's PD, if later - it's banned from wikipedia until 2011. NVO (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exact date of death? 
Talk:My Living Doll

message: I just reformatted a crudely formatted addition that replaced the information I had put in earlier. Daily Variety - which hardly had a 100% accuracy record may have said one thing, but we have the word of 2 sources - Newmar and the show's producer - in the 2012 DVD release documentary which says otherwise. Both views must be included per WP: BLP because Newmar is one of two surviving parties of this so-called conflict, and therefore her statement must be included for fairness and NPOV. 70.72.223.215 (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Cummings departure

message: On or about 7 November 2014 Drbogdan reverted an edit linking to Star Trek: Voyager and the 7 of 9 character. I don't care whether this line:
:The assignation AF 709 may be the inspiration for the "7 of 9" character in the series Star Trek Voyager.
is in the article or not, but if it is, then the name of the TV show should be correct (that is, include the colon) and it might as well be linked to the Wikipedia page for the show. That was my edit and I believe that edit was correct. If Drbogdan wants to challenge unsourced material that's fine... but reverting this edit does not do so. Mikek999 (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  In popular culture & Star Trek: Voyager
Talk:Glen Jenvey

message: That prominent quote about Israel and Kashmir is not only unsourced, but also seems likely to have been fabricated.  I suggest removal unless a source is found.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.216.110.54 (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The following self-published sources (blogs) were removed from the Criticism section on The Sun article controversy.  Although these sources essentially say the same thing as the published sources, Wikipedia policy states that we should not use self-published sources in biographies of living persons.  I have therefore removed these references (which were inserted by me in the first place anyway!), and kept only the published reference.
* 
* 
* 
--Buyoof (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand the linking policy, but do think these individuals should get the credit for their research, rather than just Private Eye. Is there a way to do this without violating EL policy? SteveLoughran (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, as I think the bloggers' articles may have been what prompted the Private Eye to investigate.  I'd like to give them credit but have no idea how - apart from on this talk page... --Buyoof (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed references on the Sun article controversy 

message: Jenvey subsequently said he converted to Islam, and released a full apology for the story on 19 August 2009. His apology cited the "chance to install fear back in Jews who were killing Muslims" as his motive .But this was untrue as Jenvey was invited into British Islamic circles where he uncovered more link's of terrorism in the UK.
I can't edit this paragraph as I don't understand the last two sentences - nor what they are intended to mean. If it is not possible to decipher this and edit within a reasonable time, then the paragraph will have to be deleted.
Centrepull (talk) 14:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not the only one. This article is very unclear to read, and doesn't make it obvious who Glen Jenvey is or what he really believes. The section quoted above is also entirely unsourced. This article needs serious cleanup to come into line with BLP, or possibly deletion. Robofish (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Para makes no sense
Talk:Ferrari 365 GT4 2+2, 400 and 412

message: The Ferrari 365 GT4 2+2 is the first incarnation of the 400 series and they should be in the same article  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.181.197 (talk) 02:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 365 GT4 2+2 with this article 

message: Article states 1976 to 1989. What exactly is this model, then? The sign in front of it says Ferrari 400 Superamerica. 
* https://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/456509_305099076236824_1758750239_o.jpg Anyone have any idea? Pininfarina did the coachwork. --RThompson82 (talk) 07:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Years of production?
Talk:Brian James (guitarist)

message: Some sources ,  say it's 1961. -- Evermore2 (talk) 11:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year of birth 

message: Didn't Brian tour with Psychic TV in 1994?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.6.224 (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychic TV 
Talk:Undercover Slut

message: What is with removing the fact that RS Saidso was in the band? - Dolled Up. (talk) 10:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: RS Saidso
Talk:Task Force Baum

message: One fifty-square-foot room was to house 40 prisoners on bunk beds...
Fifty square feet is the size of a smallish bathroom. Stuffing 40 men in there seems like a physical impossibility. If the room is 5' x 10', with two 5' bunks on each side of a central aisle, they'd need to be stacked 12 bunks high with a couple of men sleeping on the floor. Assuming generous 8' ceilings, that's only eight inches each -- not enough to fit even a thin man into once you take the actual bunk structure into account. Looking at it another way, you're talking about jamming 200 men into a building roughly the size of a Winnebago motorhome.
Could the original description have been 500 square feet? Or maybe a unit error, and really 50 square meters? Either would be a lot more realistic. Properly laid out, that could be done just two or three bunks high and leave space for the stove, people moving around, etc.
--66.92.68.103 13:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need confirmation on measurements 

message: Fine, balanced article, but would it be possible to describe the German units (possibly ad hoc?) that opposed Baum?  I've read various reports that Elefents or more probably Hetzers engaged Baum.  Realize that it may be difficult to do this given the confusion and disorganization of the Wehrmacht at this stage of the war.
Antarctica moon (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: German Opposition?
Talk:Italian migration to Britain

message: This article should have the above section for musicians who came in large numbers in that century. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 15:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 18th century

message: Non-free images may not be used here to show examples of Britalians. These need to be replaced by free images. howcheng  {chat} 21:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images in infobox 

message: 133,000 is clearly incorrect, all this is showing is how many people consider themselves to have Italian nationality. There are 70,000 to 100,000 in Scotland alone. Just look at that list of famous people and you'll see most were born in this country. If there are 107,000 italian-born people, the number with Italian ancestry is much higher. Marky-Son 19:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italian or partial ancestry 

message: Hardly a fair comparison?
Wales is a region
Bedford is a town 
article surely needs editing to reflect this??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.50.118.230 (talk) 12:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparing Wales and Bedford 

message: User Stevvvv4444 (Talk) created and is the sole author of the following Template:British Latinos (the OR tag is my addition):
I believe this is a completely OR template. Does anyone wish to comment at Template talk:British Latinos? Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template: British Latinos 

message: Template:British Latinos has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — The Ogre (talk) 15:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: TfD nomination of [[:Template:British Latinos]]
Talk:Dimmer (band)

message: have changed 'years active'; I first saw Dimmer play sometime around mid-1994; SJFs had played their last gig January '94, and Dimmer entirely post dates that band...
blacksand 13:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Year formed

message: How do we change this rating? The article is well beyond stub-quality now.
Elguaponz (talk) 11:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Old "stub class" rating
Talk:Thomas Barbour

message: I added considerable information to this article and, while there's certainly more to say about Thomas Barbour, I would argue the article is no longer stub. The information was taken from a written, though unpublished, family history along with Naturalist at Large, Barbour's autobiographical account of becomings and doings as a naturalist. I also relied on In Friendly Candor by Edward Weeks, who was Barbour's editor and friend for many years. One of the chapters in Weeks' book is about Thomas Barbour and his immediate family. If someone is reasearching the family, it might be helpful to know that Barbour's brother, William Warren Barbour, was a U.S. Senator from New Jersey and can also be found in Wikipedia. --Jancarhart 13:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No longer a stub 
Talk:Jeff Kaplan

message: There is also a different Jeffrey Kaplan who is a notable researcher and writer on new religious movements.  Many of the articles that link to this one refer to him and not the game designer.  Should we make this a disambiguation page? Dragomiloff 23:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll pop up two and a half years later to voice my agreement. I think we should definitely disambiguate between Jeffrey Kaplan the game designer, and Jeffrey Kaplan, author of Nation and Race, editor of the Encyclopedia of White Power, etc. I'll take a stab at it in the next few days if nobody objects. --Stormie (talk) 03:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation

message: Looking at the edit history, there's a large amount of reverted edits. Would it make sense to semi-protect this page? Thebombzen (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible semi-protection?
Template talk:Needsource

message: Please see the discussions of proposed changes to this template at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace#Citing sources.  --SteveMcCluskey 13:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Changes

message: This template says a lot of irrelevant things and talks down to the editor that gets it. Why is "as you might be aware there is currently a drive to improve the quality of Wikipedia by encouraging editors to cite the sources they used when adding content"  at all relevant?  Whether there is a drive is irrelevant, the important part is that the user should cite their sources.  The original version was much more concise, and I don't see anything good added by the new version.  Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Original meaning this one? Titoxd(?!?) 22:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, except without the mistakenly added signature.   before the rewrite that removed your version. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wordy and patronizing
Talk:Land warfare

message: This is a good start, but it's still more outline than article; it needs to be turned into actual prose, not lists.  Aside from that, the major points to keep in mind as it's being developed:
* Land warfare didn't suddenly appear in the 21st century.  The current theory is important, of course, but the bulk of the article should be a historical treatment of the topic.
* Inline citations are much easier to add as an article is being written.
Keep up the good work! Kirill Lokshin 03:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment 

message: Thanks heaps for your assesment-as you can see I'm rather new to Wikipedia and your feedback is greatly appreciated. :-) Bennyboyz3000 06:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanks

message: The real world is not like Battlefield 2, drop the "classes". All Soldiers are normally trained to operate as an Infantry Rifleman in some capacity, however most have cross-training as specialties. You'd be better off dividing the article into the different forms of maneuvre warfare on land (Mechanized, Airborne, Amphibious, Mountain, Jungle, Arctic, Urba etc.), as well as Guerilla warfare and Insurgencies. Then discuss the history, tactics (theory and reality), current trends, examples of major land battles, speculative material on future Land combat etc.
Basically, when you're a soldier, you're not divided into a "class". Your unit is your class.
And most personnel are not frontline combat but rather combat and service support, which is rather different. There's no discussion of the use of vehicles, artillery and emplaced weapons, logistics, ECM warfare, or anything of the overall "force multipliers" used by a modern fighting force. Really the only "class" divisions you can make is between Infantry, which is ANYONE fighting on foot, Vehicles, both combat and utility, emplaced weapons, emplaced support systems (towed RADARs etc.), fixed installations etc. And the lines are invariably blurred.
I didnt agree with some of the soldier classes and their equitment. A traditional sniper is much different than a designated marksmen and the distinction should be made. A sniper will often carry a standard service rifle (M-16) in addition to their long rifle. Also, engineers almost always carry rifles, not shotguns or just sidearms. 
Overall, this article seems to be written by someone who played alot of videogames and hasnt seen much of the real military  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lifeline (talk • contribs). 
:My thoughts exactly! --Ukas 16:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted the "soldier classes" part. Better without. Some kids might think Battlefield 2 equals reality. --Ukas 16:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the? 

message: I rewrote the introduction. The rest is just about late-20th century Combat Arms. Land warfare is of course a far more complex subject than just infantry, armour and artillery--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment - not even a start
Talk:Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System

message: Looks like the meat of this article came from the fas.org website. Isn't this considered copyvio???
Supersquid 14:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAS 

message: This seems like it's outdated as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.206.178.96 (talk) 15:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated? 

message: The first three paragraphs were copies of the subsequent paras., sans markup, and with one additional opening sentence. Perhaps this was done in order to dispel copyvio claims? I don't know, and won't be investigating it; however, from a style point of view the article is better off now.
--Arkeides 19:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant paras 

message: The article currently refers to SCI levels, without any explanation of what they are.
So, what are SCI levels? What is SCI?
I came to this article because a passage in the 2006 decision memo that resulted in Guantanamo captive Sultan Sari Sayel Al Anazi's repatriation stated
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sensitive Compartmented Information there ya go on what SCI is. JDBlues (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah... Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 03:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are [[SCI levels]]? 

message: "an intelligence analyst in their early twenties named Chelsea Manning." 
Does Chelsea Manning go by they/them pronouns? 
--Bella2129 (talk) 07:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chelsea Manning pronouns?  

message: JWICS is also known as "TS/SCI IP Data".
https://storefront.disa.mil/kinetic/disa/service-catalog#/forms/top-secretsensitive-compartmented-information-data  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincent Parizeau (talk • contribs) 02:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another name of JWICS
Talk:Electrowetting

message: I feel this article could be made more readable, but I'm not knowledgable abount the content anyway. --FauxFaux 14:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup? 

message: Unreadable, as simple as that. Is there anyone involved in the take that could spend a couple or so hours writing this up in a readable format?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.68.243.41 (talk) 02:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Godawful article as per wikipedia's "high standards" 
Talk:Pito Salas

message: Is that Cambridge in England or elsewhere? -- Ralph Corderoy 14:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cambridge, Massachusetts. Solarapex 04:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: In Massachusetts Oniiion (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Dan Keating

message: Are you sure that Keating was released from civil war captivity in March 1923? This seems most unlikely given that the war did not end until April/May of that year. Most of the Republican prisoners were not released until 1924.
Jdorney 10:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release date 

message: Other than Indymedia, there are no other reports of his death. And they pulled the first article. The second one is only a mirror of the first one. DragonFire1024 03:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Breakingnews.ie has an article on his death, and politics.ie also covers it. GiollaUidir 14:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death
Talk:Flag of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands

message: It may be unofficial, but it's interesting to see a crescent with the Southern Cross. And a palm tree.  Xyzzyva 14:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:TACOS

message: I feel this article is skirting the edge of both WP:NEO and WP:NOTABLE? Is there anyone who can improve this article? Otherwise, it's probably AfD material... - Debuskjt 14:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Recent changes do nothing to comply with WP:NEO, WP:VERIFY, or WP:NOTABLE, so I'm nominating the article for deletion. - Debuskjt 13:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problematic?
Talk:Veikko Hakulinen

message: http://www.skiracing.com/news/news_display.php/1252/NORDIC/newsArticles/ says the 25th but the story is dated June 7, 2004. Why did they wait half a year to report it?
"Olympic Skier Veikko Hakulinen Dies at 78" from the Associated Press on the 25th doesn't say if he died that day or it's just being reported that day due to the full article being pay-only. 
http://www.haka-ski.org/staticpages/index.php?page=VeikkoHakulinen and http://www.hiihtoliitto.fi/maastohiihto/urheilijat/urheilijat_a-o/?num=12140 report 24th, from what I can tell, but I don't know if they're WP:RS. No results on Finnish Wikipedia for the first. I have a result for the second, but it's a stub and http://www.translation-guide.com/free_online_translations.htm didn't translate the text well, so I can't tell if it's WP:RS.
http://www.valkeakoski.fi/portal/suomi/kulttuuri_ja_vapaa-aika/liikunta/urheilijagalleria/ reports 25th, from what I can tell, but I don't know if it's WP:RS. I searched the Finnish Wikipedia for it without success. TransUtopian 14:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Death date
Talk:Electronic libretto

message: No explanation, text just dropped.  WHY?
Vivaverdi 14:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, a considerable amount of the text has been dropped by an anonymous editor without any explanation.  This explains the history and scope of the system in many opera houses around the world. Viva-Verdi 19:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Constant vandalism on this page by way of removal of substantiual portions of the text with no explanation.  WHEN is anyone going to deal with this?? Viva-Verdi 15:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What justification is there for removing text??

message: Today I have posted the following on the Talk page of the person who continues to vandalize this article:
:==CONSENSUS FROM EDITORS THAT REVERTED COPY ON Electronic libretto IS NECESSARY==
:"I have reverted the latest deletion from this article with the following note:
:"This is NOT publicity but a history of the evoution and spread of the system.  IT IS CLEARLY SUPPORTED BY MANY OTHER EDITORS"
:At last, 62.85.192.81, you seem to justify your actions by including the words "removed publicity".  This is the first time that you have provided a justification for your actions but, given the number of editors who have reverted your removal of what is clearly seen as important copy, THERE IS A CONSENSUS that this material is valid.
:Therefore, 62.85.192.81, LOOK AT THIS HISTORY of the reverts of your text removal and you will see that I AM NOT ALONE.  You have ast least 3 editors who support my position.
:If you would like to use the TALK PAGE to present an arguement for the removal of this text, we shall all weigh in and establish a consensus (although I would argue that a consensus already exists)".
Therefore, I am asking editors to acknowledge on this page their agreement that the existing copy is a necessary part of the article, in the hope that User talk:62.85.192.81 will see the light and stop behaving in the way that he/she has been.
Viva-Verdi 15:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 5 March 2007: Continual reversions of much of the text of this article
Talk:Eberhard III, Count of Württemberg

message: how do you translate "der Milde":the lenient, the charitable, the moderate, the gentle?
His predecessor was called "der Greiner", which means the quarreller, so I guess gentle would be a fitting translation.--Wuselig 14:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: epithet

message: "Second, he married Elisabeth of Nuremberg..." ??? Look at her article. It is not true or there are two persons with the same name. --Beren (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They are two persons. I removed the link and added the dates of life. --Wuselig (talk) 05:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Elisabeth of Nuremberg
Talk:Pensacola station (Louisville and Nashville Railroad)

message: An editor needs to explain why they removed information about which passenger trains actually served the station. The paramount purpose of the structure was to serve passenger trains stopping in the city. It is most relevant to identify the trains that went there and the origin and the destination of those trains. Thus it makes no sense for an editor to delete this information from the article. Please justify your opposition to the edit that added information on the trains and train destinations from this article. On what rationale do you oppose divulging this information to Wikipedia readers? Or, is this an issue of documentation?Dogru144 (talk) 02:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of passenger trains from article needs explanation