lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Trimble Inc.

message: This is obviously an advertisement that was pasted here from their website.  It uses first person and refers to "our products". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.253.243.247 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 2 August 2007
:Instead of pelting it with stones, how about contributing and cleaning it up?  It's a stub article, for heaven's sake. —QuicksilverT @ 21:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Advertisement
Talk:Trading day

message: Why revert this change?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trading_day&oldid=prev&diff=1108156099
The comma in MLK confuses the reading of the list, and the linked article (Martin Luther King Jr. Day) doesn't use the comma in its title. The full title of Juneteenth is unnecessarily long detail for such a list, its common name is much more recognizable, and the linked article (Juneteenth) doesn't use the full title either. WikiWikiHigh (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why revert?
Talk:Design brief

message: The quality of the article is low but academic research in this area is scarce so it'll need a community wide push to keep this article developing.--31.221.21.34 (talk) 12:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: who is the one who upload it 197.253.109.75 (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: please who uploaded it 197.253.109.75 (talk) 11:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

message: Community issues 41.115.87.109 (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure to cross a river safety 

message: What is design brief 105.245.103.245 (talk) 18:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  EGD
Talk:Disability management program

message: --CopyToWiktionaryBot (talk) 11:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2008-03-24 Automated pywikipediabot message 
Talk:Tishman Speyer

message: Can't find any info that suggests Tishman Speyer is publicly traded.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.104.40.27 (talk) 22:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They aren't public.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.156.111 (talk) 06:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public?
Talk:Tip Top Tailors

message: "Feb 2011, Tip Top Tailors began a purge of many of their long term employees, some of 40 years service with the company."
This reads as bitter griping about an impression of the company that doesn't seem to be backed up with facts. Also, it's poorly written.
99.226.68.59 (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:First Quench Retailing

message: Removed this sentence
:The effects of this discount frenzy are yet to be seen but so far the Thresher Group website has collapsed with the pressure.
and replaced it with
:The Thomson website temporarily collapsed under the pressure.
as it's over now, and the website is working fine.  Rojomoke 19:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coupons 

message: Just updated a couple of bits and added the latest takeover. Lucid Nonsense (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: What would be the best approach with the redirect on this page? The Threshers brand has been relaunched as an online only retailer by Dave’s Discount Group. My suggestion would be to create a dedicated Threshers page (similar to bargain booze) which accurately represents the current situation of the brand and remove the redirect in place from Threshers to First Quench Retailing.  Jt1010 (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection. JDAWiseman (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect
Talk:Thermo King

message: This article ought to have a corporate infobox including financials - especially gross revenue.--Appraiser (talk) 13:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Financials

message: This article definitely needs a rewrite, as many of its statements are blatantly false. Numero and Jones didn't "usher in the era of frozen foods", as mechanically cooled refrigeration vehicles were in use a full decade before their patent, and mechanically cooled refrigerated boxcars were in use worldwide a full forty years before this article says they "invented" it. At best, they held patents for specific designs of technology that was in practical use at, bare minimum, a full decade for each technology claimed invented by them.
As well, I just checked the Thermo King website, and a significant amount of this article is lifted word-for-word from it.24.76.165.69 (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Complete Misinformation

message: I just decided to add this article to the "HVAC manufacturing companies" category, I saw this add as appropriate.
Ginta suou (talk) 03:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  HVAC manufacturing companies 

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) 21:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]]
Talk:Edison Illuminating Company

message: Article links three-wire electrical station to direct current which does not explain three-wire, presumably a type of early direct-current supply. - Rod57 (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Might be redirected to "split phase" which explains the Edison 3-wire DC distribution system in the context of explaining the 3-wire AC system. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a three-wire electrical station ?
Talk:Employee poaching

message: I have renamed this article to "Employee poaching" following a Google test:
* https://www.google.com/search?q=%22employee+raiding%22
* https://www.google.com/search?q=%22employee+poaching%22
Maybe the results will be completely different when someone else does these searches, but with me, "employee poaching" clearly got more hits than "employee raiding". Just to be sure, I tried a number of proxies, but the discrepancy remained the same. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retitled
Talk:Environmental management system

message: It doesn’t say what an ems does, only how it does it. Stop reverting the edit mrollie 92.1.175.218 (talk) 23:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed! Bingo! 92.1.175.218 (talk) 23:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I returned it to the cited quotation. We don't need a redundant sentence, certainly not one that sounds like it was written by a PR rep. MrOllie (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introductory paragraph
Talk:Taiwan Power Company

message: I propose merging Taiwan Power Company baseball team into Taiwan Power Company. Unfortunately that article currently does not have enough information (or sources) to merit being its own. Butterdiplomat (talk) 14:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal
Talk:Tacit collusion

message: Not a single bloody valid reference in the whole piece.  I suggest the article be pulled, until something can be put in place that has some traceability to valid sources.  LeProf  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.244.80 (talk) 23:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very bad shape indeed. 

message: Dr. Normann has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Normann has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
*Reference : Fonseca, Miguel A. & Normann, Hans-Theo, 2012. "Excess capacity and pricing in Bertrand-Edgeworth markets: Experimental evidence," DICE Discussion Papers 67, HeinrichHeineUniversitat Dusseldorf, Dusseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Normann's comment on this article 

message: Conscious parallelism is actually the same, but considered from the legal point of view--Geysirhead (talk) 14:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  I would like to merge in the legal side of the problem
Talk:Swagelok

message: Which isn't necessarily a problem, but certainly using "we" to refer to Swagelok gives away the author, and is unacceptable in an encyclopedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.174.190.27 (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obviously written by the company 

message: This bloody article was directly lifted from  (entire history) and  (the second paragraph).  Otherwise it would be db-spam worthy.  Please salt the earth. hbdragon88 04:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio
Talk:First-come, first-served

message: Surely any limited-stock item for sale will be first come first served? Unless people think games consoles are a particularly good example of the concept, maybe that bit should go. Johnny E (talk) 12:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Gaming

message: That it should correctly be "first-come, first-served" may well be true, but there are good reasons why you might decide that it ought to be "first come, first serve" even if that is grammatically incorrect, for example because that is the more common usage. The explanation as it stands in any case strikes me as dubious, partly because it is using the continuous tense, and should perhaps be referenced. Hutchinson's has "first-come, first-serve." 
None of this accounts for the hyphens, which would only make sense if the expression was adjectival, as in "on a first-come, first-serve (adj.) basis (noun)." 
Google is no help as it won't account for hyphens or whether the d should be there or no. Has anybody got an old-fashioned Oxford dictionary, on paper?Sartoresartus (talk) 08:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't understand this section, is someone actually claiming that "first come, first serve" is commonly used - 'fraid not, it's always "first come, first served" in my 50 some years of experience.
As of March 4, 2013, "first come first serve" gets 3,770,000 Google results, and "first come first served" gets 5,090,000. On this basis I would advocate for a less normative main entry. scottgwald (talk) 23:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I definitely often hear and say "first come first serve" but I think the grammar section of this article is prescriptivistic and should be removed. It contributes nothing and would probably be considered "wrong" by linguists, as opposed to grammar nazis. 205.175.97.219 (talk) 02:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammar
Talk:Supervisory board

message: Shouldn’t the information about the German supervisory board be merged with the article on Aktiengesellschaft?  The article about Aktiengesellschaft implies that it is exactly the same corporate entity as a Public Limited Company, PLC in the UK or US.  It translates Aktiengesellschaft as a company owned by share holders whose policies are decided on purely by shareholders.  But, in actual fact, because of the supervisory board Aktiengesellshchaft are actually owned, well company policy is decided at any rate, by stakeholders rather than just shareholders through their voting powers at the Annual General Meeting or EGM so the article is being quite misleading without this key piece of information.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.110.191 (talk) 01:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  German Supervisory Board 

message: Looking at the phrase "The minimum of members a board can consist of is three, the maximum 20. The number of members has to be divisible by two, as stated in the law", surely then the minimum must be 4 members?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.158.139.228 (talk) 12:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logic error? 

message: I study and research Corporate Governance and this appears to be incorrect to me in that a supervisory board is not called board of directors. The board of directors is the first tier board, in this entry call the executive board, and the second tier is the supervisory board. Thus, the supervisory board is not called the board of directors.
:Although I am not a specialist, I agree with the preceding paragraph that the article should not say the supervisory board is "often called board of directors." In the UK I would have thought supervisory boards were rare. In the UK most companies have boards of directors, and likewise in the US I think; and probably also in most English-speaking countries. I can't help thinking that this whole article has been written to explain a foreign practice occurring notably in Germany, not something often found in English-speaking countries, as explained at Board_of_directors#Two-tier system. This should be made clearer in the first paragraph. At present there is little to make it clear in this English-language article that it is about something rarely found in English-speaking countries.UBJ 43X (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this correct "often called board of directors"? 

message: Often in some countries (not sure how wide spread though) in not-for-profit organizations a 2 tier structure is adopted. 1. A Board of Directors with oversight of the strategic direction and to ensure the 'owners' or the organization's key objectives are met and oversight of the CEO and  and 2. the second tier variously called Supervisory Board/Committee, Management Board/Committee etc with oversight of the operational aspects, the day to day running of the org (thus the Directors do not need to be concerned with day-to-day decisions/operations.
May be worth adding with additional comments.
Mark ok7 (talk) 03:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  another model that could be discussed
Talk:Foreign ownership

message: This truly needs a solid definition with examples and history. Misunderstandings can create serious international relations problems. --SueHay 02:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Listed twice, including once after Israel, out of alphabetic order. I don't know enough about the subject to fix it, but they should be consolidated. 66.33.123.115 (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indonesia
Talk:High Falls (DuPont State Forest)

message: This article needs to stay on the Davidson River and not get moved to "North Carolina", since there are at least 11 waterfalls I'm aware of in North Carolina called "High Falls" - all of them significant (moderate to high volume, constantly flowing, not trickles or seasonal). 5minutes 15:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: High Falls of the Davidson River
Talk:Staple port

message: Why are there so many separate articles: The staple, Staple port, Staple (wool), Staple right, Merchants of the Staple? Dictionary thinking. An inclusive article should give concise summaries of each of these, set in a general context: encyclopedic thinking--Wetman (talk) 03:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Fragmented thinking
Talk:Governance, risk management, and compliance

message: Please see Wikipedia:Neologisms. "The use of neologisms should be avoided in Wikipedia articles because they are not well understood, are not clearly definable, and will have different meanings to different people. Determining which meaning is the true meaning is not only impossible, it is original research as well — we don't do that here at Wikipedia." Also, the blog "citations" are a problem unless you can establish the writer's expertise in his/her field. This article does not seem to have a coherent topic or coherent writing. Stringing together a series of dictionary words with wide usage in various contexts is not a good way to name a Wikipedia article unless the terms together have acquired a very clear cross-cultural meaning. If this article isn't cleaned up, I suggest the article be deleted. --Busy Stubber 03:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neologism?

message: The quality of sources in this article seem very poor. I would tend to trust a comment from a Forrester Research analyst made on a FR blog, but OCEG's blog doesn't seem a good source -- and a paragraph here seems to be plugging this organization. I've requested more citations. ---- Busy Stubber (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality of sources 

message: I'm new to Wikipedia talks. I'd just like to say that the GRC topic is becoming incresingly relevant to the business community, and that this wikipedia page is providing relevant and useful information on the topic, so, even if me too think the page should be edited to be improved, I don't think it should be deleted. --Andrea.pederiva (talk) 09:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - this is now a common business term - I'd like to see this cleaned up Egret (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance of the topic 

message: * http://scholar.google.com.hk/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+compliance+management+course&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
--222.64.212.180 (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic info about the topic.....for the section of ''Education'' 
Talk:Space.NK

message: I propose to merge Nicky Kinnaird into Space NK. I think that the content in the article Nicky Kinnaird can easily be explained in the context of Space NK, and the article is of a reasonable size that the merging will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. 86.30.55.114 (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal
Talk:Gray ceiling

message: I think I should write something down before a speedy deletion comes around. I just stumbled into this article and never had anything to do with it, but I should say -- keep it and expand it. It's bordering non-notability, but it's linked from other generational issues articles and it's a fascinating concept in and of itself. Makes me want to go back to graduate school and write a thesis on it. Dnavarro (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:H & J Smith

message: Should we rename the article H&J Smith. I have visited their website and they call themselves H&J Smith without the apostrophe "'s"? If anybody has no objections, I will rename the article in the near future. Andykatib 03:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Renaming the article
Talk:Social return on investment

message: This article reads more like an argument for the use of SROI than a decsription of it. There is no discussion of pros and cons; no consideration of criticisms.  
- Dr. P. Lankton 09:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work. Thanks!
I added a section on further applications of SROI, i.e. how it has been applied and adapted for other types of analyses. In particular i used the example of the PSROI framework based on SROI costing methods. New editor, comments welcome!! Thanks. C.peterson32 (talk) 17:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I removed the following from the Monetisation Princple section: "On the pro side, the reasoning is as follows: The question of how individuals and societies value one thing compared with another continues to absorb philosophers, psychologists, social scientists and economists. But having to get on with life, the price of things reveals peoples’ preferences for one thing over another." No citation, and also a very poorly written piece.202.74.169.57 (talk) 06:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Monetisation Principle

message: I don't know how to change the references. Maybe someone can link the Social Return on Investment Position Paper, New Philanthropy Capital?
http://www.thinknpc.org/publications/social-return-on-investment-position-paper/
It is mentioned in Reference 9 and 11. Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.233.66.12 (talk) 10:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference link
Talk:Hoover valley

message: This article is very short, and half of the text basically restates what is already in the Hooverville article. I would suggest that we move the two sentances about Hoover Valley (and corresponding source) to the Hooverville article. Thoughts? Jay†Litman 15:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge with [[Hooverville]]
Talk:House of Quality

message: As a (now retired) Systems Engineer, I've found that the House of Quality concept, while useful, becomes extremely unwieldy as the complexity of a system increases.   I'd like to hear more commentary about that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.183.91 (talk) 02:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 68.188.183.91 - Do you mean the general nature of it's harder to do everything with complex systems, or do you mean the process becomes harder much faster than the rate of complexity ?  Markbassett (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unwieldy for complex systems - discussion requested 

message: Simpler diagrams are out there.  Should we use?  If so, then how ?
The diagram shown seems rather intense for an explanatory article and an unusual one too.  The QFD tables seem to take their 'House' name from the triangular roof-like top areas, but not usually like this one.  I have also seen a simplified example with customer priorities on left (1-looks good; 2-inexpensive; 3-lasts long time; 4- holds heavy weight), engineering measures across the top with simple 'X' for if it applies to that row, and far-right rankings (1 to 5) of a few competitors at that priority.   (see also Otto & Wood, Product Design Techniques in Reverse Engineering and New Product Development 2001; Salt & Rothery Design for Electrical and Computer Engineers 2002)  
Doing Bing I see house of quality diagram has many variations.  Some of them are simple, some are involved -- so seems there are easier diagrams.   Should the article have a different diagram, additional simple diagrams, what ?  Please discuss Markbassett (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different example diagrams
Talk:Six forces model

message: Porter includes political considerations in his "factors not forces" arguments regarding business macroenvironment.  Does anyone know how those proposing to add that as a sixth force approach Porter's conception of those factors/forces?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.54.34 (talk) 02:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Government/Politics? 

message: The content on this page is almost identical to part of the "Criticisms" section in "Porter five forces analysis".  I don't know how to flag this article for being merged, though.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatome (talk • contribs) 06:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Porter's Five Forces Analysis 

message: This article has been translated into Chinese 六力模型 MoJieCPD (talk) 03:52, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translated