lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Amiga 4000

message: Should we have a separate article for the A4000T? It is a separate model with, I believe, significant differences. At the least this article should probably be cleaned up so it doesn't confuse the two so much (e.g., the way it says there are two models - the 030 and 040 versions - but the 4000T is yet another model). Mdwh 23:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections, so I've created Amiga 4000T. Mdwh 00:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate article for the Amiga 4000T? 

message: They also made use of a Lithium Ion backup battery rather than a NiCd. This backup battery is also one of the most common causes of problems in the aging A4000s: it has a tendency to eventually leak. The released fluids are somewhat corrosive and can eventually damage the motherboard.
Which battery had the leak problem? The NiCd or the LiIon? the barrel batterry that it came with- the backup as u call the fix. Its simply a standard battery used in todays computer.
:Well, since the first sentence clearly states that it does not have a NiCd battery, I don't think this is very unclear? Pipatron (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This could perhaps be written more clearly 

message: "Unlike previous Amiga models, early A4000 machines have the CPU mounted in an expansion board;"
It is not true. Amiga 3000 has CPU cart compatible with A4000. Many custom CPU cards (turbo cards) compatible with A3000 and A4000 (simultaneously) were available in the market.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.238.150.131 (talk) 10:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The early A4000s have no CPU on the motherboard. Zac67 (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  CPU cart exists in Amiga 3000 
Talk:London Streets

message: Is there any evidence that the "London Streets" brand is still used by TfL? I can't seem to find any reference to it on the current TfL website. Elshad (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current situation
Talk:Old Trafford (disambiguation)

message: I don't wish to tread on anyones toes here, but it seems to me that Manchester United are considerably better known worldwide than Lancashire Cricket Club, which in turn is better known than the area of Trafford, and so the odds are that most people searching for Old Trafford would be searching for the football ground. A quick Google search (usual Google caveats apply) reveals "Old Trafford" football retrieves 1,430,000 articles  while "Old Trafford" cricket retrieves 645,000 articles . Why not move Old Trafford (football) here, and place a disambiguation notice at the top, pointing towards the cricket ground and geographical area? --Daduzi talk 23:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably no-one objected because as a DMB page it wasn't on anyone's watch list! There is no basis for having this as a redirect. In its own way the cricket ground is as important as the football ground. To make this a redirect makes everything look clumsy having to have a string of DAB links at the top of the football article. TerriersFan 02:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All it takes is "for other uses, see Old Trafford (disambiguation)", and stick all the dab links there. Neıl ☎ 11:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Make [[Old Trafford (football)]] main article?
Talk:Jenő Jandó

message: tihs artical is POV!!!!
Frosty 23:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: could you elaborate? Gershwinrb 05:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has been edited quite a few times since that comment was made; if you look at a version from the time that article was made, you'll see what he meant. Also: This needs to be moved to Jenő Jandó but I don't know how to move articles. Quendus 11:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Or maybe it wasn't POV. I seemed to remember looking at a previous version when I last edited this page, and finding POV parts that had been fixed, but apparently not. The "acomplished pianist" part is the nearest it comes to POV. Quendus 11:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: It's based - very closely, very little paraphrasing, not nearly enough paraphrasing - on the external link noted.  "Promotional material" exemption can't be made here, especially when the page has a prominent "©2007 Naxos "etc. at the bottom... There is a strong case to be made here for copyvio-tag. Schissel | Sound the Note! 14:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Of course it's POV...
Talk:Takashi Yuasa

message: I came to this page after seeing it listed on the 'clean-up' list. 
Someone probably translated the Japanese Wiki on google or altavista babel fish. If anyone's fluent in Japanese, please provide us with a gramatically correct translation. Thank you. 
I touched small amount of the introductory parts, however, I think I'm messing up the true meanings and the context provided in the Japanese wiki. Gunbolt 23:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I have attempted a translation. It should now be grammatically correct, but is almost certainly lacking in other ways. Notably, there is liberal use of weasel words earlier in the article, and the whole thing lacks consistency. For what it's worth, titles of TV programmes are almost all my own unofficial translation. Please let me know if you have any comments. Grgcox 20:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: After revision

message: Is it just me, or the NPOV of this article is...lacking?  Example:  the first few sentences of the article...'or so he claims', 'he claims xxx'.  And there's that "Truth or Nonsense" section... Also lacking intext citations and still rough around the edges in terms of quality.  Do you know? (talk) 05:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: neutral point of view and citations...and other things

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) 00:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: I have just removed most of this article because it was the epitomy of a BLP violation. I can't believe it has sat like that for more than 6 years... AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Textbook BLP violation
Talk:John Mahoney

message: I'm wondering how often John Mahoney was confused with Len Cariou. They were so similar that they could've switched roles one week on Blue Bloods and Frasier and no one would've known the difference if the two series had been running concurrently. If a Frasier reunion TV-movie crops up, Cariou would be perfect as Frasier's father: no one would even realize that the part had been recast. Racing Forward (talk) 16:30, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separated at birth
Talk:Violin octet

message: I'm making a very small change to this article; The Soprano Violin tunings given were actually a perfect fifth higher than the regular violin tuning, not a "fourth" as mentioned, which at any rate could refer to a diminished, augmented, or perfect fourth. I am assuming that it is meant to be a perfect fifth, however, since violin and viola are a perfect fifth apart.
With due respect, I think that is incorrect. I think that the correct wording should be "perfect fourth" because C-G-D-A, the tuning of the soprano violin according to the external link, would be a perfect fourth above a standard violin tuning G-D-A-E, not a perfect fifth. RosinDebow 00:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is correct.  I'd also contend that "fourth" and "fifth", if unqualified, are generally understood to mean the perfect intervals.  Hopefully some links should clarify that. — Miles←☎ 03:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First section 

message: Discussion of the infobox that just showed up is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Instruments. __Just plain Bill (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: It's interesting to note that various bassists have in recent years started to tune their basses in fifths, as Hutchings originally recommended for the small bass and contrabass violins - see fifths tuning and Joel Quarrington.  It's probably original research to note this unless any published source has noted the connection between the two, but it's interesting all the same.  TSP (talk) 03:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fifths tuning 

message: Sorely lacking is information about the bows used to play these instruments, especially for those instruments (treble violin, soprano violin, tenor violin, small bass violin) that have no equivalent in the usual violin family or for the alto violin that does but which is played differently. I've looked for information on the sites specifically dedicated to the New Violin Family but could find nothing. If you come by information regarding bows please add it to the article. Contact Basemetal here 16:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bows 

message: Does anyone know how many of these instruments have been made?
Thanks Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 02:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Instrument count

message: I would be interested if someone would create a graphic of the note ranges of the violin, viola, cello, and double bass overlaid on the piano keyboard, so we can see which notes the traditional instruments cannot play but which these instruments can. I'm musically illiterate so I can't do this.
Thanks Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding the piano

message: The article states:
:Currently, there are three performing groups which play and record on the instruments of the violin octet...the Hutchins Consort...the Albert Consort...the New Violin Family Orchestra...
As of March 19, 2024, it appears that only the Hutchins Consort is active.
Thanks Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Performing groups
Talk:My Teacher Is an Alien

message: Someone removed the section I added on the ideology in this series. This is important information about it. Smeapancol 23:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually agree with you there, having read the books myself at an impressionable age, I believed it for a few years at least.  I think Wikipedians in general want to keep politics confined to the politics pages, thouhg.  <FONT COLOR="#800000"><B>Haplolology</B></FONT> Talk/Contributions 14:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

message: * "My Favorite Childhood Sci-Fi Author Fries My Brain —  fourthords | =Λ= |  18:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  additional source(s) 
Talk:Žaltys

message: Žaltys (Zaltys, žalčius) whatewer you might call it was really grass-snake, quite common according to 
Jesuits in the household as an untouchable pet, although it was newer a god. Funny, though, according to the same Jesuits, they were fed wit milk. 
If you think further, they were really saint, if they fed on that...--Lokyz 23:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Anonymous web browsing

message: Can someone familiar with the article verify whether these external links is spam or not? A lot of them are links to software products with descriptions like: "Protect your Online Identity. Get Informed Here" and "Fresh Proxy List Daily Updated!". They wreak of ads. If any of those were valid, just add them back in. Spellcast 02:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: The Anonymizer article and this one have a lot of the same information. I propose renaming Anonymizer to "Internet anonymity" and having a section in that article about anonymous web browsing. 90.136.218.67 (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are people so slow to merge things on here that clearly should be merged? --24.21.148.155 (talk) 00:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge this article and rename it. 

message: What's that one "asshole theory" I've seen mentioned here on the site? Something about internet + anonymity = asshole. It ought to be mentioned (or at least linked) in this article. --24.21.148.155 (talk) 00:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Asshole theory"

message: Why would qhul be in the SOURCES section and not, say, free-hideip ?
Why would any of them be listed except as clearly identified services or products ?
And not as "Sources" - see wikipedia guidelines on sources of factual information
Worse the qhul reference is not found by a wikipedia search.
G. Robert Shiplett 14:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  link in Sources 
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 49

message: Please see my comment at Template talk:USD. Thanks.
Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Currency convention and [[Template:USD]] 

message: 1700s is far more often used to refer to a century than to a decade, isn't it?  I'm not sure I've ever seen the latter usage, actually.  We certainly shouldn't use it to refer to a decade—it would be horribly confusing.  We should use "first decade of the 18th century" instead, if necessary.  Is it common for style guides to prohibit using such things to refer to entire centuries? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I read it not as a prohibition but a note that the article 1700s is about the decade, not the century. Rmhermen 20:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "1700s" is not a century, but a decade 

message: #The article says C$ is the usual abbrev.
#i've always seen it as CA$ though
#and the ISO currency code is CAD (as we're using for pounds sterling in the example)
which should we be using? i glanced through, but could gather no sense of consensus from prior discussion: -/archive29, -WikiProject_Numismatics/Style(-talk), -WikiProject Numismatics/Archive 2#Naming_conventions. -Quiddity 04:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I have no opinion.  Whatever's used most.  It only seems natural to me to use the full country code; it reduces confusion, I should think. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that their doesn't seem to be any agreement. I would prefer the full country code. This would at least make it clear which currency was being referred to. It would also reduce confusion where short codes (e.g. $ or £) are used by more than one currency. There are two potential problems I can see (1) What do we do with historic currencies and (2) I suspect that most people don't know what the country codes. Solving (2) would mean we would need links on the country code. So for example we would have CAD$200. Personally I am attracted to the idea of a template to do this, we could then incorporate other information into the link later (e.g. exchange rates or "xxx in todays money"). However, if implemented this would mean these templates being used in a lot of places and I don't understand the implications for this on the servers. --MarkS (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian currency abbreviation
Talk:Battle of Beecher Island

message: :++Lar: t/c 15:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Native American tribal flags that were not in use at the time of the battle may not be included in the article, as per WP:MOSFLAG. Sensei48 (talk) 07:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flags 

message: The link in the article refrences Sheridan, CO as being near Ft. Wallace.  Sheridan is a southern suburb of Denver.  Should this reference be to Sheridan Lake instead? Thank you for putting this article together - very well done. 
-jsg
::You are right -- the city of Sheridan, Colorado is absolutely irrelevant.  As it happens, the town of Sheridan Lake, Colorado is also the wrong reference, although it is closer than Sheridan, Colorado.
::No, the correct reference is to Sheridan, Kansas, which was the western terminus of the Kansas Pacific Railroad at the time of the Battle of Beecher Island, but was abandoned after the railroad was extended west of that site.  I have fixed the article now. Paul (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  not Sheridan, CO but the abandoned Sheridan, KS 

message: One of the US soldiers at this battle was a Jewish immigrant from Czechoslovakia, named Sigmund Schlesinger. He had arrived as an immigrant in 1865, only 16 years old, and took a job with the Union Pacific Railroad. When Forsyth was gathering his scouts, Schlesinger signed up, despite having no military experience. Schlesinger would go on to distinguish himself during the battle. Years later, when Rabbi Henry Cohen of Galveston wrote to Forsyth asking how Schlesinger had performed, Forsyth responded:
"He had never been in action prior to our fight with the Indians and throughout the whole engagement which was one of the hardest, if not the very hardest, ever fought on the Western plains, he behaved with great courage, cool persistence and a dogged determination that won my unstinted admiration as well as that of his comrades, many of whom had seen service throughout the War of Rebellion on one side or the other. I can accord him no higher praise than that he was the equal in many courage, steady and persistent devotion to duty and unswerving and tenacious pluck of any man in my command. It is a real pleasure to state this fact. I especially mention the pluck and endurance of this young man of Israel and speak of him as a worthy descendant of King David."
I have four sources for this and several more details about Schlesinger at the battle. I think the information is interesting enough to warrant being on Wikipedia. My question is twofold.
Firstly, should I create a new article for Schlesinger, or should I add a new section to this article? Secondly, if the latter, should I call the section just "Sigmund Schlesinger", or something else? I am a novice at editing Wikipedia articles, and would like advice.
Thank you!
Yaitz331 (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sigmund Schlesinger
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 49a

message: Hi guys, and sorry for jumping so late into the thread. As I have seen in many other Wikipedia discussions the amount of words spent on the issue is absolutely overwhelming, so that anyone who doesn't happen to follow the discussion right from its start would need *hours* to keep up. Could, please, someone having a good understanding of how the discussion has evolved make a little summary? Thanks a lot, Gennaro Prota (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The argument for en-dashes is that it is proper, standard English typography. The argument against en-dashes is that hyphens are more commonly used, but this is based on 2-year-old data that overcounts hyphens that are not used in dates and are thus irrelevant to this discussion. In long-past discussions, an argument against was that the – HTML entity cluttered the text when editing, but now that Unicode characters are available, which appears as – rather than – even when editing, this is no longer a concern. - Centrx 20:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Centrx. As to HTML and Unicode entities, they may clutter the text but, well, that's *source* text. I'm mostly in favour of them, as it may be sometimes very difficult to spot errors otherwise. See for instance this discussion. --Gennaro Prota (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A little request
Talk:Molesey

message: The name of the article is East Molesey but the article appears to be about Molesey as an whole (including West Molesey), so my question is: why not move the article to Molesey as at the moment it just redirects to here. TheEnlightened 23:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: East Molesey and West Molesey are two separate places though they have merged into one. There really should be two separate pages. SuzanneKn 23:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Both west and east Molesey should fall under the same article. There is no point in having two articles for effectively what is now the same place. East and west Molesey should redirect to this page and this article should be named Molesey. Oliverwk 10:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: West or East Molesey

message: I wanted to remove the 'citation needed tag' on the name derivation so I have put in a reference from a sensible source but that conflicts with the comment noted below which has a different spelling. I'm not sure what the Book of Molesey is as it is not in the references. Perhaps someone knows more about it than me. The piece I deleted goes:
:The Book of Molesey by Rowland Baker dates Molesey to around the year 666 where the area of Mulesei was given to the Benedictine monks of Chertsey.
The Benedictine monks was Chertsey Abbey and 666 is the 7th century but the name spelling is different. SuzanneKn (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Name derivation

message: Did nothing at all happen in Molesey between 1200 and 1968?  Really?  Skinsmoke (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Mentioned in the text - but does not appear on List of urban districts formed in England and Wales 1894–95 or List of urban districts formed in England and Wales 1896–1974. Clarification anyone? Suitable references are  and . Jackiespeel (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urban District of East and West Molesey 

message: The crime section is not very useful because there is no sense of how the crime rates compare to the UK average.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussiewikilady (talk • contribs) 21:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Crime section
Talk:Reem Kelani

message: http://www.reemkelani.com/images/26.jpg 
I found an image for the article, from her official website. Gunbolt 23:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This list is a little random at the moment: the article would benefit greatly if the source material was incorporated into detail within the article, with references as footnotes  ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I had never heard of this artist and stumbled upon this article as a link from another article.  Most of the article, especially the "discography", is quotations from glowing reviews of her few recordings and work in general.  I searched her on Youtube and found that one video had about 18,000 views, several a few thousand, and the rest in the hundreds or fewer--which is common for many obscure artists.  I'm all for including articles about lesser known artists, and I approve of those articles being thorough.  On the other hand, this one is more lengthy than many about very famous and significant artists, and only due to the inclusion of extensive reviews.  Looking at history, I found that almost all of the last couple hundred edits are from one person, and previous to them the article was close to a stub.  Someone was obviously enthusiastic.  The question is "who?".  A view of the contributions of the editor shows that almost all are to this article.  Does anyone else suspect abuse of Wikipedia for promotional reasons?  Xerlome (talk) 02:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this article being used as a promotional outlet? 
Talk:USS Commodore Hull

message: DANFS says 1860 and the other Navy Historical Center reference says 1861.--J Clear 23:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So the second source is used in the parens and cited.  – S. Rich (talk) 03:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Construction Date "Disputed" 

message: Added ship infobox to the page as there wasn't any. Made minor eds to the existing page, and added See Also, cats, etc. Added intro first para to show concept.
There is a pix available at
* USS Commodore Hull (1862-1865).
which should be included at the top of the infobox.Wikited (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upgraded page