lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:South Atlantic states

message: I have made a proposal to change the colour of the map box, please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. regions --Qirex 05:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Colours and appearance

message: How are the classification of states in a bestselling book relevant to this topic?  Especially when the only thing linking the two is that some of the "South Atlantic States" are in the new south.  Can we delete this and move to a new page?   --Jerelabs 05:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New South

message: I removed the map because it conflicted with the text, it excluded West Virginia and said that Virginia was sometimes included in the South Atlantic States. I went to the creator's talk page to ask about it, but he/she is no longer contributing to Wikipedia. If someone has a map to go with the article please add it.Dubyavee 18:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I removed the map

message: I believe that the South Atlantic States should be subdivided in 2 sub-regions within: the Lower South Atlantic (or Southeast), consisting of Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina; and the Upper South Atlantic, consisting of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia. Just an opinion. jlog3000 (talk) 01:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Atlantic States should be sub-divided 
Talk:United States congressional delegations from Minnesota

message: Dean Barkley is shown as holding office way too long.  He did not get appointed until after the death of Paul Wellstone in October of 2002 and was out office in 2003 when the new senator Norm Coleman was sworn into office.
::Facts verified. U.S. Congress Biographical Directory Barkley (who, interestingly, was the losing candidate in the previous election for this post)was appointed shortly after the Death of Sen. Wellstone. He "took the oath of office in Minnesota on November 5, 2002, and served until January 3, 2003," so the chart should be modified to reflect this, and probably appended with a footnote. ~ Ross (ElCharismo) 14:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errata 

message: I think until newly elected candidates are sworn in, they should be labeled as Senator-Elect and Members of Congress-Elect, since there are unfortunate scenarios whereby they might not ever serve.  Appraiser 19:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fortunately, should something happen between Nov 7 and Jan 3 that renders them unable to serve, we can edit it. :) But yeah, it's a simple enough matter to note that the 110th congress hasn't been sworn in yet. --Golbez 20:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Election Results
Talk:Alvares (ski resort)

message: This page needs to be recreated into a disambiguation page, linking to the Iberian surnames Alvares and Alvarez and also to the Iranian community of Alvares, as three separate entries. Famous persons with those surnames also should be linked to from here. However, since I do not have the skills, I will not do this myself. It should preferably be done by people with indepth knowledge of Spanish and Portuguese cultures - WikiSceptic 05:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguate

message: the true name of this resort is "Alvars" not Alvares  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.34.206.173 (talk) 12:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: name is not true

message: There is no citation for this article. at some part it says: This is second standard ski resort in Iran...it is not clear: does it mean second in chronological way or second best equipped...--F4fluids (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Problematic writing
Talk:12 step treatment

message: Brim--giving a redirect to a page which does not even mention the existence of 12 step treatment is not very informative.  I have eliminated the sarcasm.  But the history of 12 step treatment is an important subject which people should be aware of.
Pork Chop Tze 06:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Juist

message: I've redirected Loog here. It's a village east of Hammersee. I'm not sure how to work it into the article. Perhaps a section "Settlements" would be appropriate? Shinobu (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loog 

message: This article reads like a first grader wrote it.
how rude  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.121.7 (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrible quality
Talk:James Der Derian

message: He was at the IAS, which, as you say, is in (and not at) Princeton.--128.122.227.32 (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:USS Sproston (DD-577)

message: My Father served on the Sproston in Vietnam and I will be pointing this page out to him to do the artical.
The one intresting fact I do know about this ship is that when it was decomissioned it was scrapped and the material was sold back to US by Japan in the form of new cars.
Moved here by Joaquin Murietta 06:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked, the site you listed copied the DANFS site verbatim. C.F. DANFS Sproston I believe it is public domain, but am ready to stand corrected! Joaquin Murietta 06:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * I don't follow the naval stuff, so if DANFS is public domain, that's fine.  Thanks for checking and nice (and fast!) work getting this article shipshape.  Bikeable 18:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by article's creator

message: Paul Morsewich (talk) 06:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  USS Sproston DD-577 February 4, 1944 Mainland Japan Shore Bombardment, Singular Ship 

message: My grandfather served aboard the USS Sproston from 1963-1965. Though I am no experienced Wikipedia editor it should be noted that photos post-WWII show that the second 5-inch gun from the bow was replaced with a RUR-4 "Weapon Alpha" ASROC launcher, which I believe the page should make note of. 75.132.237.67 (talk) 01:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Later Armament Modifications
Talk:Salisbury, South Australia

message: Jimmy Barnes comes from this suburb? Can anyone be sure of this? I know that he grew up in Elizabeth West, but never heard of him living in Salisbury. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.45.120.126 (talk • contribs) 
:Looks like you're right. I think he goes "back" to Salisbury more often for concerts etc, but various Google hits and http://www.jimmybarnes.com/ suggest he grew up in Elizabeth. Thanks. --Scott Davis Talk 06:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Jimmy Barnes
Talk:Athalite

message: I voted late on the second AfD and missed the first altogether but firmly believe this article should be deleted as a neologism and thinly disguised ad.  I hope someone else will put it up for AfD again.  My comment in second AfD vote:
:Delete as per nom. This is a coined, purportedly Trademarked, name (i.e, a neologism) for a component or material used in a nn commercial product. Nothing verifiable about this component or material is known, except that it is not, contrary to the current text of the article, patented (at least in the US). Arguably,the founder of the company who does have two patents and two pending patent applications relative to cordless soldering irons is notable, and maybe the company itself, but NOT this neologism--FRS 21:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And the article as it stands is very poor... "Athalite is probably graphite" -- Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I recommend merge-and-redirect of any useful and verifiable information from reliable sources into the ColdHeat article.  Such a crappy product doesn't deserve 2 articles, if it even merits 1.  I would not oppose deletion of both articles, or only this one. User:Pedant (talk) 03:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Water beetle

message: I had a couple of these beetles in my pool I brought in late in September, actually just one that i brought in the house.  He's living in a tank alone.  I can't find any information on what kind he is.  His name is Lance.  Other than him there's a chunk of tuna fish rotting in the tank for nutrients in the water and a couple plants from out back yard.  He looks like nothing I've seen.  He has arms that look like a row boat out to the side and swims on his back.  He doesn't bite as far as i know,  I pickedd him up out of the water with my hands.  If I find out what this is I'll post it back here.
--Jay and Lance
jxceran3@yahoo.com
ok I found it on this page http://www.whatsthatbug.com/toe_biter.html They're Backswimmers, Notonecta species and they're very interesting.. This guy also found it in his POOL and they it tells what they eat also but this doesn't go for all water beetles.
Hi Terry,
The reason you couldn't locate your Backswimmer, Notonecta species, on our site is because it is a first for us. We actually had to make a decision where to put it. We decided the Toe-Biter page was the most appropriate location, and we will expand the scope of the page. Backswimmers are True Bugs and they are torpedo shaped and aquatic, but fly. They propel themselves through the water up-side-down in a jerky erratic manner using the extended and hair-fringed hind legs as oars. Air trapped in abdominal pockets enables them to remain submerged for six hours of inactivity if necessary. Their wings and backs are pale and the undersides are dark which acts as protective coloration while swimming. They are excellent hunters that prey upon insects that get caught in the water, aquatic insects and tadpoles. They have piercing mouthparts and can bite. Thank you ever so much for adding something new to our database.
Don't forget: Notonecta isn't a beetle, it's a bug. Beetles never have piercing mouthparts.
By the way: the dinner table for water beetles (and bugs) is very diverse: there are carnivorous and herbivorous water beetles, while most water bugs are carnivorous or omnivorous (and as said above, Notonecta is carnivorous) Twerbrou 10:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Food for a water beetle?

message: There is no taxobox so I'm assuming this group is polyphyletic? Article should say if this is true. Craig Pemberton (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Taxonomy
Talk:Auditory imagery

message: This article needs to be streamlined and broken down for nonspecialists.  The main problem is the giant chunk of journal text dumped in the middle.  I haven't deleted it, because a more qualified editor may be able to trim some useful stuff out of it, but it needs a look... --Dvyost 07:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Streamline

message: ;From Biosthmors
"Studies developed by Janata and Paroo show" is unnecessary in my opinion. Wikipedia always cares about the facts, not always the who/why/when of those facts, unless we're going to have a history section, for example. Biosthmors (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: I was reading the pitch section with made a claim that "Auditory image pitch detection studies have shown that response time increases when judging two high pitches as opposed to judging two low pitches.[2]" This directly contradicted an academic journal I was in the middle of reading. So I checked out the linked source and it said the the same thing as the source I was reading and not what the wikipedia article says. I don't know how to best edit this or if I'm missing something so I'm leaving that to someone else. Any here is the source I was talking about:
Intons-Peterson, M. J., Russell, W., & Dressel, S. (1992). The role of pitch in auditory imagery. Journal Of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception And Performance, 18(1), 233-240. 50.158.213.213 (talk) 04:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you 50.158.213.213 for your comment, and you're absolutely right. I fixed it. However, I would like to encourage you to be bold next time you find a mistake. Worst thing that can happen is that another editor reverts your edit, and well, that happens every now and again to all of us...  Friendly regards! Lova Falk talk 10:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Pitch
Talk:Skyway Airlines

message: I agree with the comment below; the article should remain under the "Skyway Airlines" name.  The name of the corporation is "Skyway Airlines, Inc.", the FAA certificate is issued in the name of "Skyway Airlines", and the airline designation of "Skyway Airlines" is recognized both by the United Nations International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the International Air Transportation Association (IATA).  Skyway Airlines, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Midwest Air Group, which also owns Midwest Airlines.
"Midwest Connect" is a trade name as a regional feeder to Midwest Airlines.  In the past, Skyway Airlines has also investigated opportunities to provide regional service to other major airlines, to which the "Midwest Connect" trade name would not apply. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.82.9.76 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 12 April 2006  (UTC-8)
--------
The move makes no sense in that the article refers to Skyway Airlines more often than Midwest Connect. I'm not saying the move definitely shouldn't occur, but I am saying that right now, it makes no sense to move it.
Please clarify the situation on Wikipedia:Requested moves - see the Clarification section near the bottom of the page, where this request is now listed. Rob Church Talk 01:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: { { move|Midwest Connect } }

message: Since the Midwest Connect name will soon be used by SkyWest operated flights as well , I've changed that article into a stub to cover the brand, distinct from Skyway itself, rather than being a redirect to this article.  I've modeled it on the beginning of the Continental Express article.  It needs to be expanded, but it's getting late... ;) -- Hawaiian717 07:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Midwest Connect 
Talk:Gonzalo Frasca

message: *Strong Keep - User:Tsuba put up a Speedy Vote for Deletion on this - with no commentary or background on why it should be deleted, or why it should be speedily deleted.  Frasca is a bona-fide games reseacher who has made notable contributes to the field of game studies.  In addition he's a notable presence online, having contributed several provocative political video games to the public domain.  Why should be be deleted?  If Tsuba will be silent on the subject, then Frasca should certainly not be deleted. JustinHall
* OK, I've researched a little bit more and it shouldn't be deleted. By the way, I put a reason for deletion -> A7 , which if you've read the Deletion policy you would know what it means. Tsuba 17:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: VFD
Talk:Jayachamarajendra Wadiyar

message: YEs,it does not have even  a small mention of him on wikipedia page of VHP.I insist of verificatio  of whether the founder-president claim is true at all!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happy sage (talk • contribs) 13:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  It says Wodeyar is the founder-president of Vishwa Hindu Parishad.....but...wikipedia page of VHP  has no mention of him ?? 
Talk:Salman Ebrahim Mohamed Ali Al Khalifa

message: Excellent work! The best by this author. Joaquin Murietta 07:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: old comments

message: Replaced transcluded image with inline image -  tag as per dispute on Template talk:Combatant Status Review Tribunal trailer image and caption.  Geo Swan 15:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replaced transcluded image with inline image - {{tl|npov}} tag as per dispute on [[Template talk:Combatant Status Review Tribunal trailer image and caption]] 

message: As a courtesy to other to other contributors could we please discuss controversial edits on the talk page, not in the edit summaries?
This reversion follows the practice of packing the justification for an edit the contributor himself calls "controversial" in the edit summary.  This practice has the unfortunate effect of often triggering edit-warring -- because it poses a grave temptation to those who disagree, whose simplest way to reply would be to revert, and put their explanation in their edit summary.  Edit summaries are so short, that this practice often leads to escalatingly hostile comments.  
So, as a courtesy to other to other contributors could we please discuss controversial edits on the talk page, not in the edit summaries?
The contributor who made this edit supplied the edit summary: "Undid revision 352579703 by Geo Swan (talk) partly controversial - pls stop edit warring"
An uninvolved third party is likely to be mystified by this edit summary.  How could a single edit constitute edit warring?  I don't know how long I can be expected to wait for a meaningful, substantive, policy-based explanation for this excision of valid and useful wikilinks.  Geo Swan (talk) 08:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop edit warring and stop posting misleading messages to talk pages. The topic has been discussed unfortunately you refused to continue the relevant discussion and instead continues edit warring. Once again stop this or you might be blocked from editing Wikipedia in the future. IQinn (talk) 09:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  As a courtesy to other to other contributors could we please discuss controversial edits on the talk page, not in the edit summaries?
Talk:History of the United States (1849–1865)

message: I have been considering creating one or more articles about the development of infrastructure and industry in the colonizing period of the American West, ie bridges, roads, mills, mining, lumber, production of goods and textiles.  Very broad topic.  Can someone point me to existing articles/categories that may be related?  Anyone have any other approach to this info?  Best wishes.   WBardwin 05:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Industrial Development in the American West

message: The Election of 1860 section references a main article, but the target is a disambiguation page.  As this section specifically discusses the presidential election of 1860, I think the link should be corrected.  But I am uncertain of the syntax for a clean and readable link here—would someone mind changing it?
Much thanks!
73.252.40.55 (talk) 23:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Link correction request
Talk:Membrane paradigm

message: The entire "what is reality" section seems like speculation, and doesn't belong here. Ken Arromdee 07:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Keeping it real

message: This article is not about membrane paradigm, but about holographic principle (a completely different thing).--213.141.159.52 07:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I was suprised to see them linked together.  --Michael C. Price talk 13:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless anyone objects I shall delete the holographic principle related stuff here.  --Michael C. Price talk 09:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong article 

message: Be nice to see a mention of the above as well.  Are they locked onto the membrane, for example.  And what relevance has this for quasars? --Michael C. Price talk 13:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Magnetic field lines

message: Kip Thorne himself credits  Hanni and Ruffini for the membrane paradigm. Why the disagreement? Jlodman (talk) 02:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different Credit?
Talk:The Color of Money

message: Good changes, and I haven't even seen the IMDB page for this film.  I'm really a Wiki-newb, but I think this needs a stub tag and a disambiguation from the book.  Much like the Fight Club and Fight Club (film) pages.  --Doom Music 1/1/2006
:Current edit should be sufficient.  We don't have enough material on either the book or the film to warrant an article split; not even close.  It's also no longer a stub. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 10:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This does eventually need to fork into The Color of Money for the book and The Color of Money (film); cf. The Hustler and The Hustler (film). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, when there is sufficient material and reliable sources on the novel it can be split out. At the amount there is nothing more than a plot summary, and articles based on plot summaries are against WP:PLOT. SilkTork *YES! 11:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

text: It still needs to split. We don't write one article about two different things, unless one is a subtopic of the other, which is not the case here. As long as there's any source at all on the novel, that's good enough.  As for the plot, the book is its own source, of course.  We just need something, like some reviews, to establish the book's notability. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguate/split

message: I don't see what's wrong with the Legacy section. It's also sourced. 47.152.93.124 (talk) 02:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It is irrelevant to the film and utterly trivial. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 03:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The legacy section is about a pool challenge match that's named after the film. That does define the word legacy. 107.130.120.49 (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: So what?  It has nothing to do with the film. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 20:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The legacy of a work does not necessarily refer to later things that deal with the work directly. It also includes later things that make references to it. 2605:E000:2E42:A3F0:25ED:B04F:B6D5:603 (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if they are relevant and well-sourced. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 11:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Define "relevant and well-sourced." 2605:E000:2E54:800:D1F4:3D0:D3E6:91B9 (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy 

message: The way the intro is written seems to obfuscate the fact this is a sequel to the even more highly acclaimed The Hustler (film). That film won two out of nine Oscar nominations. Is there a reason the intro doesn't simply say this is a sequel?108.171.128.182 (talk) 14:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sequel to The Hustler
Template talk:DoctorWho-stub

message: Carnildo: If it qualifies for fair use as a promotional image elsewhere, why not in a stub tag? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because fair use is determined on an article-by-article basis.  Please read Wikipedia:Fair use.  The only difference between promotional images and other non-free images is that we're less likely to be at the wrong end of a copyright infringement lawsuit over them. --Carnildo 08:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Would the programme logo (or a free or by permission picture of a police box) be permissible, then? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A free photo of a police box, sure. --Carnildo 08:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And the programme logo? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't qualify for fair use. --Carnildo 20:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use

message: Regarding the conversation above and the related talk on the project page, I have created some stub template tests with free images I created myself. They're not great, but they're a start, perhaps. User:Angmering/Stubtests. Angmering 19:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tests with fair use images
Category talk:Sport in New Zealand

message: What's wrong with this category. Sure it is becoming a bit messy, but this can be fixed up. I have already moved some of the articles to a better spot. To just delete it is plain silly. It seems that all the plaudits in Wikipedia go to the destroyers (ie management types and police etc) and not to the creators (ie workers)! Wallie 08:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Do not delete, please