lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Template talk:CC BY 1.0

message: Please add an interwiki link to the Vietnamese version of this template:
 vi:Tiêu bản:Cc-by
Thanks.
 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 02:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Guess nobody saw this, but it's added now. -SCEhardT 21:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki link to vi: 

message: This template includes a link to the image - "This image" - which I feel is unnecessary. The user is already looking at the image page and can enlarge the image from there if they wish. Unless I am mistaken, the other image copyright tags do not have a link to the image they're for. I would like the link to be removed from this template. —Remember the dot (t) 05:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. If anybody objects, feel free to revert or ask me to. Luna Santin 22:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-reference 

message: Please add interwiki link for Serbian language Wikipedia. The link is
 sr:Шаблон:Cc-by
Thank you.--Branislav Jovanovic 22:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. CMummert · talk 00:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you again :). --Branislav Jovanovic 19:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Plz, add ruwiki ru:Шаблон:CC-BY-1.0 Alex Spade 13:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 18:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki request 

message: Could this and the other CC copyright tags be updated to the standardized versions that I made? The changes that I made to them are outlined here and here. --CrazyLegsKC 05:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standardization
Template talk:CC BY-SA 1.0

message: The "cc-by-sa" template says that its pages are licensed under cc-by-sa version 1.0.  What template can we use for other versions of the license?  
The reason I ask, is that British Geograph project images are all listed as cc-by-sa 2.0, which makes them rather inconvenient to upload to Wikipedia. Ojw 16:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Should probably mention the template I was starting to create. Ojw 16:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Version

message: Please add an interwiki link to the Vietnamese version of this template:
 vi:Tiêu bản:Cc-by-sa
Thanks.
 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 02:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki link to vi: 

message: Please add interwiki link for Serbian language Wikipedia. The link is
 sr:Шаблон:Cc-by-sa
Thank you. --Branislav Jovanovic 15:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done --   Netsnipe  ►  19:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Plz, add ruwiki ru:Шаблон:CC-BY-SA-1.0 Alex Spade 13:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 18:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki request 

message: Please replace Image:CC SomeRightsReserved.png with Image:CC some rights reserved.svg and {| style="clear:both; with {| style="clear:both;.  Thank you, Iamunknown 03:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, Iamunknown 03:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: On Commons this is Template:Cc-by-sa-1.0. --GeorgHH (talk) 08:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons 

message: Could someone please move the "This template should only be used on file pages." sentence from the template to the /doc? Thanks
Mhiji (talk) 13:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Mhiji, 13 December 2010
Template talk:Cc-nd

message: Could someone unprotect this template?  I'm not sure why it is protected, and I would like to change it to look like  and .  There may have been a need for it to be protected when it first came to be considered unfree, but I don't see any now. I am also making the same request at . Thank you for your consideration. BigDT 00:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. —Ruud 00:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reapplied full protection. It has been listed on Wikipedia:List of indefinitely protected pages for quite some time. I believe it is because of legal reasons concerning the meesage "For the purposes of Wikipedia, this is a non-free license and must have an accompanying "fair use" tag and criteria." Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit request

message: please change Cc-nd white.png to Cc-nd white.svg --80.63.213.182 18:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: edit request 2

message: This page is a double redirect to . Someone with enough edit privileges should fix it. Admiral Norton (talk) 13:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double redirect
Template talk:CC BY 2.0

message: Note: It is proposed that this template be changed to what is listed on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags#CC templates proposal. We welcome comments on this proposal.  – Quadell (talk) (help) 17:51, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
----
Not sure what you were trying to do with the username, but it didn't seem to work --CGP 10:35, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

message: Would it be possible to add a parameter to suppress the categorization as 'free-media'?
I've noted some examples where although the photo is under a 'free' license, the subject isn't,
mostly images of 'recent' sculpture in the US.  Having a param like  nonfreesubject=yes on this
and other 'free' license templates would help quickly eleminate these for bots and reports trying to find
images that might have a genuinely incorrect license as opposed to one that is because of the derivation of
the image. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: It would certainly be possible, and maybe even a good idea. But this should probably be brought up for wider discussion at WP:VPR, as perhaps this should be handled a different way. For example, maybe a plain-text statement that the photographer releases their contribution under the CC-BY-2.0, but the photo remains non-free due to whatever other issues are involved. Anomie⚔ 04:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Free images' of non-free subject 

message: I've implemented a tweak in the sandbox version, namely 
instead of coding  directly.  Specfiying dw=yes will supress the categorisation in :Category:All free media, for derivative works where the subject shown is non-free, and thus can't be moved to Commons.
It would be appreciated if this straightforward change was implemented in the main template. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Please remember to update the documentation as well. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images of non-free works
Template talk:Cc-by-nc-sa-2.0

message: This template is a double-redirect.  Please replace Template:Db-ccnoncom with Template:Db-i3. --Russ (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Protection reduced. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect
Template talk:Cc-by-nd-nc

message: "If this image was uploaded after May 19, 2005, it will soon be deleted without further warning". What? Shouldn't you know whether it was uploaded after May 19, 2005. If it was uploaded before then, it shouldn't have that tag. And if it was indeed uploaded after May 19, 2005, why aren't those pages deleted? This seems like a useless and confusing template. joturner 23:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What is this supposed to mean?
Talk:Bombing of Dresden/Archive 4

message: :See archive Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II/Archive 3#Neutrality
Please post reasons for "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see its talk page." in the next 24 hours or I will remove the template. Philip Baird Shearer 01:29, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: This shows a complete lack of of awarness of pathfinders and how the technology of 44/45 limited most of the RAF night bombers from aiming at anything other than the flares put down by the Pathfinders. (See Gee (navigation), Oboe (navigation), and H2S radar.  So I am going to remove it. Philip Baird Shearer 01:29, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Normally, crews were given a strategic aiming point - anything from a factory to a railway junction

message: Which sentence should appear at the end of the opening paragraph?
#Simple statement that there is controversy around the legal and moral justifications for the raids. 
## The rest are just begging for prepetual NPOV issues. →Raul654 02:21, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
## Philip Baird Shearer 21:12, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll

message: Should every article on every battle and every war start out like this?
:The action described here was stupid and cruel and would not have happened without greed, ignorance, and human failure of the worst kind.  The pain and horror of this event are unimaginable and can only be excused by hypothetical justifications of what would have happened otherwise.
In other words, my vote is for Option 1, recorded above.  Ortolan88 19:35, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro for every article on every battle and every war
Talk:Splashdown (disambiguation)

message: Hi,
what does the column "miss distance" mean? Is this the distance between recovery ship and splashdown point?
Thanks, Max
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.235.121.78 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 1 December 2004‎ (UTC) 
Along the same lines, why does Gemini 2 say that
*" The landing was 26 km short of the planned impact point, and 84 km from the recovery aircraft carrier, the U.S.S. Lake Champlain."
whereas this article says that its "miss distance was 38 km?  Gene Nygaard 01:33, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is "miss distance"? 

message: The usage of  is under discussion, see talk:Splashdown (spacecraft landing) -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 04:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{noredirect|splashdown}}
Talk:Adnan Oktar

message: Sami Olcun is one of the names he used Seedyoil (talk) 07:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adnan_Oktar/Archive_3#%22Sami_Olcun%22_name_is_wrong._should_change_2 Shadow4dark (talk) 14:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  sami.olcun@weforum.org 

message: Sami Olcun was a blackmail asset working for MIT and the 13 eyes.  Its the same person, no other record of a Sami Olcun, Australian intelligence listed him as the head of the sex industry in Istanbul as early as 1987. Darwinmy (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see above, we need more sources. Shadow4dark (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: More like an expired Turkish intelligence asset Privavive (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sami Olcun 

message: I can tell someone who really loved him wrote this article. I think the NPOV of this entire article needs to be flagged. He runs a sex cult. --169.0.0.32 (talk) 08:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is hard to miss if you start reading at the beginning of the article. Doug Weller talk 17:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Bias here
Talk:World Trade Center Mexico City

message: I chose to redirect Hotel de México to this page and use this one to put the history of the building complex. Hopefully this will be OK; if not, I suppose the hotel's history could be moved to the Hotel de México page.
Roadmr 19:34, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

message: can loona be added as their highest grossing concert 24.155.196.50 (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  bae loona 

message: Can the template for the Functions section be removed? Imo, it's no longer subjective Imbluey2 (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template Removal
Talk:Dodge Coronet

message: I have a real problem calling the 1971 Coronet and Satellite twins. The two cars look nothing like each other. The "Mom & Pop" style of the '71 Coronet doesn't compare to the streamlined "shark-shape" of the '71 satellite. Am I missing something? Rsduhamel 19:53, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably because they're both b-bodies.  (I didnt' write that though.) Davert 16:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coronet and Satellite 

message: Erm, why does Plymouth Belvedere-> redirect to Dodge Coronet? -- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 14:37, 2005 May 3 (UTC)
: Someone fixed that Davert 14:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belvedere redirect? 

message: anyone heard of a coronet texan,if so can you give me any history thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.104.42.93 (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2006
: See http://www.allpar.com/old/texan.html  Davert 16:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1958 dodge coronet texan 

message: The way this article was before, it seemed to imply that 1955-57 was one generation and 1958-59 was another. The info on Allpar shows changes in 1957, but I don't know if that's a new generation or not. Recent edits to this article make it seem like 1955-59 was a single generation. What is it? --Sable232 22:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Generation? 
Talk:Timeline of Asimov's Foundation Series

message: This timeline assumes a Year Zero, which is nonsense: if FE starts in GE 12,068, that THAT is Year One; GE 12,067 is Year Minus One; GE 12,069 is Year Two et.c.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.130.42.219 (talk) 08:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fixed. --Againme (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  GE x FE 

message: My 1982 copy of the Foundation Series lists it as taking place in 11.692 GE.  This is obviously impossible--that's 296 years before seldon's death!  When was the series edited for the new date?  Citizen Premier (talk) 02:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Quoriston 

message: Correct me if I am wrong but I was of the opinion that there was only one years difference between -1 F.E and 1 F.E and not two, because there is no "0 F.E". The beginning of foundation says "the dates are more commonly given...(as a negative)...to the year 1 F.E" not 0 F.E as maths would have it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.178.44.173 (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  -FE Dates 

message: See Talk:Foundation_series#Timeline_of_Asimov.27s_Foundation_Series_merge_discussion--Milowent • talkblp-r 18:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge discussion
Talk:Herumor

message: #Is the material at the top actually legitimate? (And if so, does this extremely minor character deserve an article?) 
#:Checked with the source. I don't see why he would need an article though: the rôle of the Black Númenóreans in the Last Alliance is more fully treated in the LA article, and in the Umbar article. Anárion 20:27, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Question on relevancy
Talk:Chamber of Deputies (Romania)

message: There's something wrong with the figures... if 18 deputies make 21.20 % (others), how can 155 deputies make 36.60% (PSD) ? Bogdan | Talk 21:06, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right - the figures were wrong. I've corrected them. -- ChrisO 21:35, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong figures?
Talk:The Worst Week of My Life

message: The short lived US ABC show Big Day appears to be a version of "Worst Week"? --Bill Martin 00:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As no clear linkages between Worst Week and Big Day are available, a simple statement of "similar story arc" has been added to both series' pages. Bill Martin (talk) 09:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: International Versions

message: Is there any citation for the 'cancellation'? Bill Martin 20:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As no citation has been provided for cancellation this assertion has been removed Bill Martin (talk) 09:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Status
Talk:Iraq national football team

message: The links cited don't really gibe with the paragraph in the article. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say something like: 
:"During the 2004 Olympics, team members expressed their objections to commercials by the re-election campaign of George W. Bush which made reference to Iraq'a participation in the Games."
Reason being, is that the Bush ads didn't (verbally) mention the football team expressly.  
Ellsworth 21:31, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links
File talk:Air Force One over Mt. Rushmore.jpg

message: I wonder just how much taxpayer money was spent on getting this shot. Razum2010 (talk) 03:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Rhetorical question

message: The description of this picture says "It is 1,745 feet (532 m) above sea level.", but the Mt Rushmore page states "The entire memorial covers 1,278.45 acres (5.17 km2) and is 5,725 feet (1,745 m) above sea level."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.6.135 (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed redundant description from local page. Such a description should be on the Commons page, and not there on the English Wikipedia. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct altitude of Mt Rushmore sculpture
Talk:Disk (mathematics)

message: I'm suggesting that someone put a link to the article "homeomorphic". If there is no such article (I highly doubt there isn't), then please create one.--**Najezeko**:) 19:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homeomorphic 

message: What is the region surrounding the closed disk called?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddwarf2956 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: “Exterior” should do, or “complement” —Tamfang (talk) 00:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  region surrounding the closed disk
Talk:Hello (Poe album)

message: Michael Fixaris was recognized as an album editor on this page, however I can say conclusively that this is incorrect as I am Michael Fixaris, and further (as a function of extensive auto-googling) I am confident that I am the only Michael Fixaris in existence. Thus I have removed this incorrect attribution of credit.
130.111.188.12 (talk) 06:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect attribution of credit
Talk:Baugur Group

message: I think this article needs a major overhaul. The fluffy text about their strategy is like reading a brochure from the company. Every investment company says those things. Wikipedia text should be much more factual. The really interesting things about Bogur and the flamboyant Jón Ásgeir Jóhannesson are basically missing. There is no explanation to the quite astonishing de-listing, and you have to swicth to the page about Jóhannesson to find out about the court case - and even there it is very vaguely described. Finally, the English needs a major overhaul. Thomas Blomberg 01:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Too promotional

message: a recent summary by Reuters . No time to add the information by myself. --Michkalas (talk) 01:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baugur assets 
Talk:Automatische treinbeïnvloeding

message: For completeness, the ATB should also: 
* d) restrict the speed of the train after passing a signal at danger. This was a factor in the Glenbrook rail disaster.
Syd1435 22:23, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)
The image showing "Equipment for the ATB on a DB class 189 locomotive" is not part of the ATB system. In fact, it is part of the German Indusi system. ATB gets its signals via a change of current between the two rails, not via radio signals given from some device near the rails.
Dick.vd.fluit (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  SPAD 

message: Can somebody clarify how Alstom (or anyone else) can hold a patent on ATB? ATB was invented 50 years ago and patents expire after 20 years. They may have patents on some modern enhancements (ATB+, ATB-Vv), but those are not necessary to conform to the standard, one does not need them to have functioning ATB-EG equipment. PiusImpavidus (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, according to the dutch wikipedia this is only the case for ATB-NG. Changing it. Anyway, this article is rather vague on the differences between both major versions. PiusImpavidus (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patent
Talk:Declarative memory

message: Hello,
I took the liberty to ask for a merger again. I understand that you probably have reasons to keep them distinct, but in this case please explain.
 This very article says that they are synonyms, as well as others on related topics (eg Effects of stress on memory). GuitarDemon, you have good points, but if this is true please
# precise sources;
# explain it in the article, not in the Talkpage.
Please also see the comment by FrozenMan below.
Cheers, a very interested, although quite confused, reader: Thouny (talk) 01:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: New proposed merger with [[Explicit memory]]

message: Within biology, the term "explicit memory" is more commonly used than "declarative memory".
:I think they should be merged into this one.--Jeiki Rebirth 22:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merger with [[Explicit memory]]

message: Why don't I find this page when I search for "declaritive memory"? How do I fix this?--Jeiki Rebirth 22:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Searching problem

message: How about using "The apple that I ate during my last visit home was very tasty" (or something like this) an example for episodic memory? This would help the reader understand the difference better. wneo (talk) 07:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Example

message: I am a Neuroscience Major at Middlebury College. I am taking a Physiological Psychology class, and I am confused as to the hierarchy of "declarative" and "explicit" memories. The template at the bottom of the page puts them on the same level (along with "procedural" and "implicit" memories), but this is just confusing! I figured I would see what the discussion about merging the two articles was saying, but it appears as though some people use the terms in slightly different ways and are therefore opposed to merging the pages. That having been said, if the two terms are indeed different approaches to explaining memory, then they should not use the same subcategories (i.e. "episodic" and "semantic" memories).  If they are part of the same model, however, then people need to agree on where the boundaries of one ends and the next begins. It would be helpful for someone to devise a flowchart to explain the agreed upon hierarchical structure, otherwise one term should be selected and used.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by FrozenMan (talk • contribs) 00:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hierarchy? 

message: "Episodic memory is believed by many to be the system that supports and underpins semantic memory"
it's the other way around right? Episodic memory has developed from semantic memory?
"The theory holds that episodic memory evolved out of semantic memory: Semantic
memory appeared long before episodic memory." -Tuving EPISODIC MEMORY: From Mind to Brain Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2002. 53:1–25
84.49.98.83 (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: basis for semantic/episodic memory

message: The "Types" Section needs to be edited. It just makes no sense.
24.6.133.25 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 01:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Comprehension issues