lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Quasimidi

message: I have rewritten the article, which was tricky because there's a dearth of stuff about Quasimidi on the internet. The German Wikipedia article is more thorough, although it is largely a run-down of the individual products. Some questions remain. Was the company QuasiMidi or Quasimidi? I have only ever seen the name in capital letters. Why did the company eventually go bust? They seemed to be doing very well for a time. There was a huge buzz about the Sirius in particular. The only discussion I have read is in this Sound on Sound forum post here, but that's not citable and could be nonsense. Several other companies went bankrupt a few years later, e.g. Waldorf Music and Akai, perhaps the market was just too crowded. And thirdly, what happened to the people, the assets, etc? -Ashley Pomeroy 18:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment
Talk:Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc.

message: It's not clear the case means what people say it means, or that it serves as any kind of precedent.  Does anyone have a take on this?
This case was "dissolved and vacated" many years ago . Lqp (talk) 03:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Updated to reflect the permanent injunction. —Slipgrid (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

text: As an affected editor, I can state from experience that this page has been used as a tool, and a threat, to force reliably-sourced material out of at least one article, using its a) internal language inconsistencies ("page" vs. "site") and b) false, vague, and overbroad interpretation of the court's language in WP:LINKVIO.  I asked about tightening the language, and a long-term and well-regarded editor replied, "I think this is one of those situations where ambiguous language is intentional."  A month later, an involved editor accused me of "pursuing a site-wide policy change".  In my opinion, there should be zero ambiguity: it's just bad for Wikipedia.  Good luck in your quest. --Lexein (talk) 22:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: ...is why the WMF needs to pack up and move the staff and the servers to Canada, Germany, or somewhere else with less... ahem.. cruddy copyright laws. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  This...
Talk:Salem Web Network

message: I will be adding the other websites asap as well as further history.
I suggest that the outlets be alphabetized.  I'm not the best person to do it since I edit lamentably slowly.Katharine908 (talk) 13:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: - Alphabetized the outlets finally! Eruditess (talk) 04:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Talk:Florence Griswold Museum

message: This page needs to be moved form Florence Griswold House to Florence Griswold Museum.  It is an historic house that acquired a campus,  an endowment,  a large modern museum building, and a new name.
:I will take care of it, thanks. Gigs (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is done. Gigs (talk) 12:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Move request
Talk:Takahisa Zeze

message: Wouldn't Akai Joji mean Red Love Affair, not Bed Love Affair? I could be wrong it just seems odd a word was chosen that rhymes with the direct translation. --Kevin332 (talk) 03:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, Kevin. That must be either a typo or a mistranslation. Fixed it anyway. Dekkappai (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Functional psychology

message: Functionalism seems so natural that I wonder if it simply represented a mainstream "real world" rejection of lab psychology. It served as a justification for the kind of studies that governments, businesses, and foundations might fund. If I say it, based on my impressions, it is NPOV. Is anyone familiar with sociological or history of psych literature that bears on this point, one way or the other ? DCDuring 18:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is functionalism dead or just common sense?

message: B.F. Skinner shouldn't be the example for Behaviorist.  John Watson was the one who developed the school of thought, partially based on Pavlov's experiments with dogs, developed his theory as more of a reaction to functional psychology and structural psychology in 1913 with Psychology as the Behaviorist Views It.  B.F. Skinner developed Operant Conditioning, and was only 9 in 1913.  B.F.Skinner was really involved in psychology until about 1945.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.58.82.135 (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Behaviorists
Talk:Victor Lundberg

message: The article claims "... it sold over one million copies within a month of release and was awarded a gold disc ..."  But the official RIAA site (https://www.riaa.com/gold-platinum/) does not list the record as certified gold.98.149.97.245 (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gold disc
Talk:ProCare

message: ProCare is a term used by many companies, products and services. Apple does offer a ProCare Service, but "ProCare" itself is not inherently tied to Apple. I would suggest a title that clearly shows the ProCare in this article is indeed Apple's ProCare Service. In fact, that might be a good title right there, i.e. "Apple's ProCare Service".
PEH2 19:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect JointVenture. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Hildeoc (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  JointVenture listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:177th Fighter Wing

message: In the infobox, the starting date was given as 19xx, which links to the 20th Century article.  Why was this used?  The fighter wing started as the 177th in 1962, so I put that date in there instead.  Nutster (talk) 13:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Activation date?
Talk:171st Air Refueling Wing

message: The article under section "History", "Aeromedical Airlift indicates that the unit was mobilized for active duty sometime in 1968 and released from active duty and returned to the control of the PA ANG in December 1968. The Wiki article on the 375th Air Mobility Wing, section/subsection: "History", "Components" indicates that the 171st AAG was assigned to the 375th AAW from "13 May-12 December 1968". This would probably be the same as the mobilization period. As wiki can't be used for a source, I can't update the article with this data. I think it would improve the article if an approved source was found. --TGC55 (talk) 05:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: deleted duplicate section with identical date/time stamp. I don't know how this was posted twice, however my FF browser crashed when I completed the edit--TGC55 (talk) 05:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates of 1968 mobilization.
Talk:Nathaniel Stern

message: working on this  Please be patient Artsojourner 19:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First thread

message: references and links seem to be broken. going to give a try to fixing them.  6 Oct 2007  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.234.88.235 (talk) 04:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled old thread

message: I've just added two short paragraphs describing recent exhibitions involving a collaborative series produced by Nathaniel Stern. For what it's worth, I am an acquaintance of Mr. Stern, and I obtained the materials I used for this update from him. WWB (talk) 23:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  April 2010 update  

message: Dear Nathaniel,
As an artist and writer in the new media community, I am very familiar with your work and thought that your special commitment to being involved in the WP community might make you inclined to take interest in some of the edits and issues happening around the article on me. I wondered if you'd mind taking a look at it. The article was created by someone other than me over 10 years ago but in that time there has been some misinformation (places of birth, employment, education, etc) posted & even insisted upon/reverted-to after edits & corrections by others. After leaving it alone for a decade, I recently tried to go in and make some quick corrections myself, given the number of erroneous quotes by journalists, curators, and students writing about me. However, this seemed to open a Pandora's box and suddenly even previously fact-checked info regarding my educational credentials, professional accomplishments, professorial career, and major exhibitions and publications were quickly stripped or reverted. Upon the advice of other WP editors, I've decided to stop editing my page and create a sandbox of suggested edits and references on my Talk page for any interested parties to review, edit, and migrate. I would be honored if you had a moment to look over this post. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marisa_Olson#Sandbox_for_Requested_Edits_Dec_1st_2016  Many thanks, Marisa 
 Marisasolson (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mind looking at my article?
Talk:Bootstrapping (finance)

message: The relation between the example and the formula for forward substitution is not clear.
--93.211.29.119 (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: I think there should be some reference to Bootstrapping_(statistics) which is important in many financial calculations. ErikRydbert (talk) 18:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Statistics
Talk:157th Air Refueling Wing

message: The tag for the copyvio should be modified.  The document URL indicates it is a public document published by the US military.  The real problem is the (typical) lack of attribution to the source document.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio 

message: The group redesignation in 1960 is documented in an issue of Air Pictorial, which ran an article on a unit history in each issue (at least back in the day).  Mostly RAF squadrons, but they did a US unit every now and then.  I've had trouble digging my old issues out (other units covered that I recall were the 31st Fighter Group and 394th Bombardment Group -- as the 106th Aeromedical Transport Group).  This type of thing is one of the reasons that AFHRA refuses to track ANG lineages.
A lot of this was in a garbled manner in the earlier version of the 101st Air Refueling Wing, which, like most of the articles on the 27 groups allotted to the Guard in 1946, is a garbled history of the group and the 27 wings formed in 1950.  Starting with the group, it was formed with squadrons in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont with group HQ (and the 201st Air Service Gp HQ) in Maine.  The 101st Wing was formed in 1950 (consistently missed in these articles is the fact that for the groups called into federal service in 1950, the wings and support units with the same number were activated in the regular air force, and not returned to state control in 1952/1953, but allotted to the Guard for the first time.  Some, like the first 106th Air Refueling Squadron, were never allotted to the Guard).  Anyway, the 101st was returned to the Guard as before.  However, the group was withdrawn from Maine and transferred to Vermont in 1954.  Starting in the Spring of 1956, Guard units gained by Air Defense Command began to transition to the organizational model ADC had been using since 1953, with a regional air defense wing commanding air defense groups (fighter groups (Air Defense) after 1955).  At the same time the group was withdrawn from the Vermont ANG, which replaced it with the 158th Fighter Group (AD), while the group became the 101st Fighter Group (AD) in the New Hampshire ANG.  The Maine squadron and support units (each group had a materiel squadron, an air base squadron and a USAF dispensary -- the wing had these, too, dropping its previous Air Base Group, Maintenance & Supply Group and Tactical Hospital) were assigned directly to the wing.  In 1960, the New Hampshire unit converted to airlift.  The 101st Fighter Group (AD) was not withdrawn from New Hampshire, but had to be renumbered when a Fighter Group was formed at Dow under the 101st Air Defense Wing and (being on the same station as the wing) given the same number as the wing.
I see that Air Pictorial has quite an archive online, but it's not handy to use if you don't have the exact issue since going back takes you to more resent issues and the old ones have to reload.  I'll add the cite when I locate it, since my paper copies of the magazine are nearby somewhere.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Group redesignation 1960
Talk:156th Wing

message: Dear  would you kindly please reach into your records and see if you can find some authoritative lineage for the 198th AS, including a most recent inactivation date? I do not wish to retain "divestment." Buckshot06 (talk) 05:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was not aware of this action, but 1 January 2020 is a possible date. The organizational action was most likely "inactivated and withdrawn from the Air National Guard."  I have found one fairly accurate but NR site that gives the date as 31 Dec 69 .  The 1946 entries there do not agree with Maurer, e.g. (no "reconstitution"), so I gather that came from an old unit web page, while the date was from a press release.  Unfortunately, it is likely to be off by a day.  People tend to think that when one AF organization goes away and another starts up, they happen on consecutive days, but the usual USAF practice is to schedule them the same day, so the conversion of the 156th to a continency operations unit is most likely 1 Jan 2020.  In cases like this, I am usually comfortable with giving a date of c. 31 Dec 2019.   Lineagegeek (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not deactivation, but divestment
Talk:152nd Airlift Wing

message: This article reads as if it were written for a middle school project. It needs to either be cleaned up or deleted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historian of African Great Lakes (talk • contribs) 01:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Stuff of legend" "bug out"
Talk:143rd Airlift Wing

message: The unit was established in 1955 as the 143d Air Resupply Group.  The only thing that happened in 1968 was a redesignation.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Establishment
Talk:141st Air Refueling Wing

message: The photo accompanying this article shows what must be the biggest KC-135 in the inventory - if its size relative to the F-15s flying in formation with it are any indication (obviously just an optical illusion with the Eagles flying some distance away from the KC and the photo aircraft).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.66.32 (talk) 03:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mighty Big KC-135 
Talk:128th Air Refueling Wing

message: Article reassessed and graded as stub    --dashiellx (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: Contrary to the history text under "Air Refueling Mission" and section 3.6, "Assignments" the 128th Air Refueling Group (later "Wing") was assigned to Tactical Air Command from 1961 until 1976 during which time the group flew KC-97 air refueling aircraft. In 1976, when the group converted to KC-135 tankers, it was then transferred to Strategic Air Command. The dates of the group's assignment to Air Combat Command and Air Mobility Command appear correct. Unfortunately, I have no written sources for these assignments and my information is based on being assigned to a co-located Tactical Air Command unit. Possibly someone has access to sources which can verify or refute my information.--TGC55 (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure that the whole ANG KC-97 tanker force was also assigned to TAC during the 1961 - 76 period.--TGC55 (talk) 08:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  TAC - 1961 to 1976, SAC - 1976 to 1992
Talk:126th Air Refueling Wing

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class.  Referencingand appropriate inline citation guidelines not met.    --dashiellx (talk) 11:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The numbers you gave make it C Class--Lineagegeek (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: The article says the 126th Group was allotted to the Illinois Air National Guard in 1946.  There was no Air National Guard until the United States Air Force became independent.  It was allotted to the Illinois (Army) National Guard. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Air National Guard in 1946
Talk:122nd Fighter Wing

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class.  Referencing and appropriate inline citation guidelines not met.    --dashiellx (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: This article concludes: "In 2014 Dr. Ficklestein discovered a new metal alloy, Cobbrillium, while working with the 122nd Fighter Wing. To date it the the weakest and most bendable metal alloy to ever be forged. Sadly the alloy is nearly worthless, it did meet the requirement for a more bendable and pliable material, however it cracks under the stresses of modern aircraft." It is curious that an ANG flying unit would be doing materials studies. A quick google search finds nothing relating a Dr. Ficklestein and "cobbrillium" - indeed no references on the web at all for the latter. At the very least, there should be a reference for this material.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.13 (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Just Plain Odd
Talk:101st Air Refueling Wing

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class.  Referencing and appropriate inline citation guidelines not met. The coverage guideline also appears to not have been met.  In addition, the over use of abbreviations for unit types should be replaced with explanations of what the abbreviations are.  --dashiellx (talk) 11:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 
Talk:Worms: A Space Oddity

message: The sources just aren't good enough. We need a source from THQ as well. So this is what YOU can do. Check THQ's website and find a source there. But until then, the unreferenced tag stays on, until a more reliable source is found. (Sneasel99 (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Image now available. Check for it, and bring it to the article. (Donmardon (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help bring an image! 

message: I've removed the one line sentence that was under the "Reviews" section. It didn't make much sense grammatically and also didn't provide any (meaningful) new information. The "Reviews" template is enough for now, though if someone wants to summarize the review table in textual form that might be nice. What was there, however, was not worth keeping. See the page history. RShnike (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reviews Section

message: SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT
in story mode,a cutscene shows the worms at*spoiler*a traffic light floating in space,an asteroid passing off,and the worms blasting off forwards.when a sign shows during worms entering a planet,a sign shows a picture of earth.(it points right)it looks like the o in the worms world party logo.could it be a world party refrence?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariofan1000 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  worms world party reference?
Talk:Papineau-Leblanc Bridge

message: The high importance to which I assess this article is due to the fact it is one of the first ones of its kind and has for a time been the longest of its type in the world. Blanchardb 19:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: rating
Talk:Working group (dogs)

message: Argh, we talked about doing articles like this off and on for a couple of years and the question always was whether each kennel club's group should have its own article (e.g., "Working Group (AKC)", "Working Group (KC)", "Working Group (ANKC)" etc. In general it seemed best NOT to have separate articles for each because there's so much overlap and they're mostly just lists, but it always left the discussion of how to handle breed overlaps where the group designators don't match (e.g., here, KC/AKC use Working Group for the same thing that ANKC uses Utility Group for).
I've folded in FCI, ANKC, and KC; still shd do UKC, NZKC, CKC (Canadian). And then spin off from there into the other group articles...
-ellen
:I think I see the problem here. Breed Groups are just definitions created by kennel clubs for their own organizational purposes, and only loosely relate to actual types of dogs. Of course the definition varies by kennel club. "Working" seems to be a particular problem since Australia and New Zealand take it to mean herding dogs (if you have been to New Zealand, you will know why!) while the Kennel Club, the American Kennel Club, and the Canadian Kennel Club use it to organize guarding dogs and such. Discussion about the definition of working dog should be on the "Working dogs" talk page, it has nothing to do with what kennel clubs name their breed Groups.
:This article is about the Working Group, and should include both definitions, and not have parts of the Australian Kennel Club's Utility Group lumped in with it.  I agree that the definitions of Working Group of all of the major kennel clubs that use that term should be on one page, but arguing about what does or doesn't constitute a working dog type (if there is such a thing) should be left to the Working dog article, and the Utility Group should be left to its own article.--Hafwyn (talk) 20:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Group articles

message: I might sound silly for asking, I like the photo, I think it's cute, but wouldn't it seem more appropiate to have a photo of the dog as an adult instead of a pup? All the rest of the dogs have adult photos. Mokoniki (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Douge de Bordeaux photo 

message: AKC Welcomes the Cane Corso, Icelandic Sheepdog and Leonberger.  I don't know how to mess with these table, and don't want to screw this up.  7&6=thirteen (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: AKC recognized [[Leonberger]] as member of working group

message: In addition to the Leonberger, etc. listed above, I note that the Bernese Mountain Dog, for example, is not listed.   7&6=thirteen (talk) 15:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The AKC working group is incomplete