lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:48 Hours (TV program)

message: :Image:48hours.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 05:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:48hours.jpg

message: Please change the music!  I hate the new music, it it dreadful and makes me not want to watch.  However, I love the show and do watch.  Every week, I think surely you will change it back to the old music.  I know I couldn’t be the only one to feel this way!  Peggy  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C7:77F:12F0:8D93:357C:EED:2159 (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  MUSIC 

message: Are the 48 Hours episodes reruns?
Thanks, 
Dave B 2601:150:4200:88D0:397D:8BEB:5CF0:499F (talk) 00:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reruns 

message: The redirect 48 Hours (TV series has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 07:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:48 Hours (TV series]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Access Hollywood

message: Article claims 3,265 as of July 23, 2007, but the March 7, 2008 edition was show #3000. Does the show number not imply the episode count?
Gus PollyTC 06:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Episode count

message: If anyone has the dates all of the former on-ar talent were with the show please feel free to add them in.  That seems to be the only important thing missing form this article.  I feel it would really add to the article if those dates could be added in .  Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TVFAN24 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former On Air Talent Dates 

message: Hello, Please do not add unreferenced names as entries to a list of former employees in articles. Including this type of material in articles does not abide by current consensus and its inclusion is strongly discouraged in our policies and guidelines. The rationales are as follows:
#WP:NOT tells us, Wikipedia is "not an indiscriminate collection of information."  As that section describes, just because something is true, doesn't necessarily mean the info belongs in Wikipedia.  
#As per WP:V, we cannot include information in Wikipedia that is not verifiable and sourced. 
# WP:NLIST tells us that lists included within articles (including people's names) are subject to the same need for references as any other information in the article. 
#Per WP:BLP, we have to be especially careful about including un-sourced info about living persons.
If you look at articles about companies in general, you will not find mention of previous employees, except in those cases where the employee was particularly notable.  Even then, the information is not presented just as a list of names, but is incorporated into the text itself (for example, when a company's article talks about the policies a previous CEO had, or when they mention the discovery/invention of a former engineer/researcher). If a preexisting article is already in the encyclopedia for the person you want to add to a list, it's generally regarded as sufficient to support their inclusion in list material in another article. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 03:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding unreferenced entries of former employees to lists containing BLP material 

message: It seems that the official websites for E! News and Access Hollywood have their copyrights listed as either NBCUniversal or a subsidiary of NBCUniversal on the bottom of their respective websites and on NBCUniversal's corporate page, which I think that they are considered "sister-programs" or "sister-shows" now that Comcast has taken over. If I say this wrong, please correct it. CHAK 001 (talk) 09:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bit of Notice on the Bottom of the Homepage(s)
Talk:The Insider (TV program)

message: --172.132.164.128 13:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

message: Should it be mentioned somewhere that Donny Osmond is currently co-hosting the show?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.167.228 (talk) 05:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Donny Osmond

message: It seems that the insider has put a lot of its time and afford to introduce/promote famous and young porn stars and bring them to the main stream.   Is the owner of this TV series investing in the porn industry?  24.160.190.226 (talk) 05:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Promoting porn industry

message: See Talk:Angelina_Jolie. If this is the case, it certainly warrants mention in this article. -- Danorton (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Insider Steals from Wikipedia?
Talk:King Biscuit Time

message: I have an issue with this article in that it's written in the first person, eg. "When I was a young teen, about 1960 or 61..."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.44.33.145 (talk) 01:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  That text was added a few weeks ago in this edit.  It's not appropriate for an encyclopedia article, so I've now removed it.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Commentary
Talk:Nightline

message: What happened to the screenshot? That was gorgeous, (and, yes, helped "illustrate" exactly what Nightline is!).
:Admins suddenly got real AR about them and deleted a bunch of them. I think I might be able to find another one somewhere though. Cs92 01:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The screenshot? 

message: say whu??  this never happened!
was it really SUPPOSED to happen?  did it happen BRIEFLY, then get undone a la new coke?
or is this line in the article just flat-out WRONG? 66.105.218.2 (talk) 12:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Shortened to 25 mins"
Talk:Treponema pallidum

message: *What does "metabolically crippled" mean? Anthony Appleyard 07:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: metabolically crippled

message: I noticed a reverted change about Gram negative staining. These bacteriae are Gram negative- also they are visible under the light microscope. Please check sources.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.41.89.52 (talk) 13:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  gram negative 

message: It clearly looks helical in that electron micrograph, and yet the material is sourced. Is Borellia even more obviously helical? 96.238.211.171 (talk) 14:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Flat and wavy?

message: Added citation to the sub-section Vaccine to back up the statement of " humoral and cellular mechanisms to protective immunity...". Nbuend (talk) 04:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needed citation 

message: If it is a limited metabolic, with only known host human, then it is a subset of an internal human existing chrome.
IE> Human, naturally occuring internal fauna or flora within a human host/body.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.44.92.216 (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limited Metabolic. 

message: What medium is used for Treponema? Artificial? --2A01:112F:742:C00:129:9EAB:F059:D30 (talk) 10:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media 

message: — Assignment last updated by Bmore77 (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: MIBO 3500 Introduction to Microbiology
Talk:See It Now

message: I am moving the following uncited material here until it can be properly supported with inline citations of reliable, secondary sources, per WP:V, WP:CS, WP:IRS, WP:PSTS, WP:BLP, WP:NOR, et al. This diff shows where it was in the article. Nightscream (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncited material in need of citations
Talk:Nafl prayer

message: Why is raka’atanil fajr not included?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.252.209.224 (talk) 10:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

message: I recently noticed that the majority of this article was completely lacking in actual references; the title of a hadith collection without the actual hadith number really isn't a reference, as it doesn't allow readers to look up and confirm the information for themselves.  In addition, in places where information was referenced it usually was the reference just copy-pasted right out of hadith collections.
I removed the unsourced material.  This is not because i'm disputing it, I know about most of it already; however, until we can get some proper sourcing on these extra prayers we shouldn't just leave it there.  It's been far too long as I remember checking this article a long time ago and still seeing nothing, hopefully myself (and others willing to help, hint hint) can collect proper sources for the other nafilah prayers. MezzoMezzo 04:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack of sourcing

message: The entire first section is discussed too much as though it is a known fact. There are different schools of thought with differing opinions on the subject and that should be reflected in this article. I don't have the necessary background knowledge about this; I've just been doing a half hour of Googling on it. However, because there are differing views about time, length, and importance (it's not mandatory, that's well established, but how good is it?), those should be explained and not swept under the rug as unimportant or incorrect. Within the explanations of the different views, if that sentiment is present, I would have no objection, but as it stands, the article reads almost like an end-all-be-all.
Majiq00 (talk) 12:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: I'm not sure how it's spelt in english exactly, but why hasn't this obligatory prayer been mentioned as well?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.209.19.224 (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Salat Al-Shefe'e oo Wet'r

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: The “Ishraq prayer” section contradicts itself concerning number of raka’ahs. Philosophy2 (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ishraq prayer
Talk:Reserve Front

message: The second formation of the front mentioned in this article from the Reserve Front into Stepp Front is sourced from here http://books.google.com/books?id=pX1AAvE64poC&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=reserve+supreme+high+command&source=web&ots=eg5MVV3zQm&sig=MC6m0E35r9O3JMTVxhwyJwQPaTQ 
However there is some confusion in this regard. While the Reserve Front was a Front-sized temporary formation, there also existed the Reserve of the Supreme High Commander (RSHC) that commanded a variety of units, notably the high-power artillery, assault-engineer brigades and long range aviation, as well as many other units throughout the war. These units and formations were under the direct command of Stalin and Stavka, although Stavka was in fact the General Staff equivalent. Stalin however was the head of General Staff. The General Staff only had command of the Strategic Directions, and the requests for units and formations from RSHC had to be directed to Stalin and not to the General Staff (Genshtab). During German air raids, Stalin was invariably found at the operational HQ of the Moscow Zone of PVO which also included the command centre of the 1st PVO Corps. Here is the unfinished ru-Wiki article http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%92%D0%93%D0%9A The RSHC had its own Staff of which Stalin was the head. When formations were taken out of the line, refomed and send back into the line (how the Stepp Front was created) they were under direct command of the RSHC until transferred to the operational command of the Strategic Direction in question.--mrg3105mrg3105 03:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reserve Front and Reserve of the Supreme High Commander
Talk:Sujud

message: Can anyone made a note about the character ۩ ? -68.21.38.231 21:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

message: Why is there no mention about the sujud of angels to Adam and what that means ?
Masssly (talk)The sujud of angels to Adam i understand was not the same prostration as we do in our daily salam.
it was merely a gesture of slightly tilting the head as we do when we meet an important dignitary. this bowing (or slight tilting of the head) only shows that we recognize the presence of that dignitary, it does not mean we in any way worship him, thus so was the angels ordered to make sujud to Adam.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masssly (talk • contribs) 22:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sujud of angels to Adam
Talk:Tahajjud

message: the rakah of the tahajjud comprises as two rakah and two rakah and so on but not more than 14 rakah.
Further after offering Isha prayer, when a muslim sleeps, whenever he will rise up but surely before the time of Fajr prayer, he can offer tahajjud prayer.  But if he did not sleep in the night, then it will be after midnight.
182.189.135.184 (talk) 23:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Witr

message: Wheres the info about the way Hanafis pray Witr with dua qunoot??  I agree lots of errors and innacuracies!!!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.214.12.203 (talk) 00:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The hanafi sect says that it's Wajib, not fard, otherwise it is sunnah 68.145.136.228 (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Talk:Tayammum

message: The article says: Umar denied that tayammum could constitute ghusl, although the Qur'an explicitly says it can.
Can someone explain this?
--Umar wasn't very well versed in the Quran.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.43.244 (talk) 10:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: thats a lie Ahendra (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

message: — Assignment last updated by Pramisha110 (talk) 06:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Community Economic and Social Development II
Talk:Progressive

message: The most common use of 'progressive' in a political sense refers to a person/idea/group that favors progressivism. This essential political meaning somehow disappeared entirely during the MOSDAB 'reformatting'. It is inadequate to merely have a SEE ALSO pointing to 'progressivism' when this is the essential political sense of 'progressive'. I don't think MOSDAB intended such effects. Twang 08:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: In biological taxonomy, a "progressive" trait is a phenotype which is divergent to (e.g. makes progress away from and toward) the over-all group but is a distinguishing feature of its subgroup. Meaning what the specific taxon has is unique to identifying it as against its larger group's common characteristics. i.e. Traits not shared by their common ancestor.
This is usually considered progressive "evolutionarily", and therefore pertinent to what makes it excel in being unique and qualifies as different from its wider range of disparate cousins while defining of its own particular type's "progress" away from similar types.
It can also be called "kainoteny" from the Greek "Kainos" meaning 'newness' as a novel quality, something uniquely individual and without parallel or example. Rather than the Greek "neos", from which we get "neoteny", meaning newness also, but solely in consideration of quantity. Pre-defined in its quality, having previous examples: e.g. not unique and but just another instance, fresh in composition, only not novel insofar as it is redundant as against others of its same type. Simply new in its particular design alongside those of the same qualities. 216.227.108.60 (talk) 06:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxonomic 'progressive trait'
Talk:Passive dynamics

message: I've never really been tempted to revise an article before, but this one just begs for it. I made some minor language revisions, but this is obviously a very preliminary article. The language is non-neutral and sloppy, and the word "valuable" sticks out like a sore thumb on wikipedia.
However, it's the cited examples annoy me the most. I could forgive an article for just giving a brief definition of a topic and general context, but it gives citations which are extremely uneven.  It is almost exclusively focuses on Andy Ruina's group.  While that work is highly respected and served to popularize the concept among roboticists, it isn't really a fair representation of the field, past or present.  RHex and the Raibert hoppers are almost iconic examples of the use of passive dynamics in legged robots (even though Raibert didn't coin the term).  
The prosthetics blurb is similarly uneven.  Wouldn't the flex-foot cheetah, a staple of athletic prosthetics, be considered a passive-dynamic device?  My quick search indicates they were invented in the 80's.
I may give this a closer look later.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.193.8.16 (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Generally biased tone to article

message: This page will be subject to update and expansion over the next couple months.  (February 28, 2008)
This page needs to be broken down into sections, expanded on, and needs its links updated.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DBSpeakers (talk • contribs) 01:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Aims
Talk:Uetersen

message: This article has exceptionally poor grammar and should be flagged -- MacTire02  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.119.251 (talk) 09:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar 

message: Why are there 220 different language versions of this article? I find it hard to believe that these weren't generated by a bot.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.73 (talk) 07:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language spam
Talk:Überlingen

message: I will expand this article in the next couple of weeks, and post a translation of portions of the German page onto the translation page.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Translation and Expansion
Talk:Marco V

message: The bulk of the article seems to be tinged with fancruft.  Any suggestions?
-Doesn't seem too bad, obviously the "best" songs on the Albums are subject to opinion, but the facts seem to be correct.
: Fixed all the fan comments. How's it look right now? The Ronin 01:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fancruft?
Talk:Great Lavra Bell Tower

message: On the section of the three bells being removed, I have made a change to the grammar but the language still sounds awkward.  Any suggestions on the grammar there?  Fundamentaldan 14:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammar
Talk:National Archaeological Museum, Naples

message: I can merge the two, but I don't know the proper way to do it. Jeffmatt 08:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: November 2006

message: The corresponding article in Italian Wikipedia is quite thorough, and it would be good to expand this article by translating it. Peter G Werner (talk) 07:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Italian Wikipedia article

message: Why is a photo of a painting based on the Alexander Mosaic being used for this entry? Should not the mosaic as it actually exists be depicted rather than a speculative reconstruction? Numerous photos of the mosaic are readily available and should be used instead of a photo of an oil painting of an imagined mosaic.74.138.40.147 (talk) 03:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The image now in the article is a photo of the orignal Alexander Mosaic. Paul August ☎ 20:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexander Mosaic 
Talk:Lists of atheists/Archive 1

message: Sorry, I saw that you hadn't replied to my comments above, but I hadn't spotted some of the other comments on Hume dotted around. So to summarise;
*Should David Hume be here? It is not clear he was an atheist - see for example http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ515.HTM
** Yes I think so. At the time 'atheist' was a dangerous label.... — Solipsist 16:37, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: David Hume

message: Bill Gates is listed here as an atheist and also as an agnostic.
----
in the interest of consistency, if Mussolini is identified as a dictator, shouldn't Fidel Castro also be called a dictator?
--Voltagedrop 05:53, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bill Gate's Double Act? 

message: Is this heading correct? Surely some of them still are atheists? Jacquerie27 17:45, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Other people who were atheists''
Talk:William Elliot Griffis

message: This article should explain about his hate toward Korea. In his book Corea: the hermit nation, it explains that Koreans are intelligently lower, and how Korea is a dumb nation full of hermits. He never even visited Korea during his lifetime.
Just A suggestion that I think you should add. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.177.11.143 (talk) 03:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hate against Korea 