lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:2000 United States presidential election

message: I want to upload an image but I can't find the copyright info.
The image should be here because it's the official image, and the current pictures of Bush and Cheney technically did not exist until after the election.
Does an official image for Texas Governor qualify as "work of the federal government"?
Please help soon. JustYourAveragePoliticsGeek (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Work of a state government is also public domain. — Andy Anderson 03:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Texas Governor Portrait of GWB 
Talk:Christian Identity

message: I removed the recent good faith edit in the lead stating that [the listed people groups] are "the sole progeny of Adam and Eve (non-white races being "pre-Adamic")."  As written, this is not necessarily true of all CI and requires too much nuance for inclusion in the lead.  Yes, most CI adherents would say that they are the sole progeny of Adam AND Eve - with emphasis on "and".  But for a Serpent Seed believer, Eve had progeny with the Serpent, resulting in the line of Cain, making a cursory reading of that sentence false, or unclear and easily misunderstood at best.  These topics are covered in detail in the beliefs section already, so it is not necessary to include it here. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sole progeny of Adam and Eve edit 

message: Recently, I have worked to incorporate key elements from the "related" section into the article itself so that it's not just a random dumping ground of CI related articles (we don't need to link every CI article - that's what categorization is for).  All that was left were some less than "key" people that, while of interest and technically related, are not necessary for the article.  From the original list and what I worked into the prose so far, they were the leftovers.  The one possible exception to that is August Kries, who might be mentioned as the successor to Aryan Nations, but honestly, that's more relevant to the AN article, which is already linked in this article.  TBH, all of them are available by looking at the category.  If someone objects, I'm open to listening to your compelling reason.  But IMO, it makes more sense to incorporate anyone "worthy" (for lack of a better term) of inclusion into the article itself (which I have done with as much of that list as I could). ButlerBlog (talk) 15:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related list
Talk:Chartism

message: I (perhaps mis-) understood that the Chartist called for a British Republic and in fact there is a Chartist Tricolour. What does it look like?  [[PaulinSaudi 06:38, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The Chartist Tricolour

message: It is impossible to consider this article credible, there is far to much background missing, we are in the bicentenary year of Peterloo 1819, yet not a mention, it was a factor leading to the movement, yes its verifiable (British Library), I hope there are editors out there who have the time to assert that the British Library details on this need to be included, source https://www.bl.uk/romantics-and-victorians/articles/chartism#
For those who like to edit Wikipedia maybe this is something someone can find time to do here, I am not volunteering.
--92.8.10.252 (talk) 06:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  To much missing 

message: I'm a casual reader, and have been searching for the early uses of the terms "Chartist" and "Chartism" on Newspapers.com. It seems there were Chartist movement in France (by 1820), Portugal (by 1837), and England (by 1837) before the People's Charter in 1838. Was this a case of embracing the name from other movements, or were they one and the same? I'll comment again if I can find a scholarly source to clear this up. ~ Peter S. Scholtes  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.240.125 (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chartism in France and Portugal before?
Talk:Satellite Navigation System

message: The military resisted for most of the 1990s, but SA was eventually turned off in 1999.
An anonymous user (218.101.54.21), with no other edits, changed this date from 1999 to 2000, does anybody have a source that can confirm the year? Should the change be reverted? Edward 09:10, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: SA

message: The GLONASS article says that the GLONASS system is (or soon will be) once again fully operational.  Should we change that in the text of this article? -- WhiteDragon 20:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Glonass

message: The opening sentence is poor - the terms "early" and "predecessor" are meaningless without some prior context. This article should start with a description of the subject, before starting on its history! --Pfold 14:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wording
Talk:Molde Airport

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Molde Airport, Årø →  – Official name as per Avinor's website and the convensional name. ᴛʜᴇMᴀɴLK (Talk) 10:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

text: * Oppose per my response in this discussion.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  11:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

text: * Move - Unless there is more than one location going by these names, the local place name is redundant and makes it harder, not easier to find the page. If there are more than one, then the bare name should be the current or most recent location. Always, simplest is best with page names. 130.226.161.50 (talk) 11:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

text: * Move It's easier to use a simpler name. 2001:BB8:2001:2:0:0:0:75 (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 10 May 2022
Talk:Pepperoni

message: Does pepperoni refer to the meat or to the vegetable? I've heard people using the word differently. --88.64.182.19 (talk) 10:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing? 

message: According to the article:
:The main differences are that pepperoni has a finer grain (akin to spiceless salami from Milan), is usually softer, and is produced with the use of an artificial casing (Italian salami is produced using natural gut for casing and are made of pure pork).
I believe the smokiness, and the beef-pork mixture, are actually much bigger differences from soppressata than the grain, the hardness, and the casing, as they're directly responsible for the typical pepperoni taste. However, I don't have a citation for that. The current statement isn't cited either, but fixing it without a cite would just be replacing someone else's assertion with mine, and, even if I'm right, that's not how Wikipedia works, right?
The already-linked NYT article does have an Oakland sausage-maker who cites the "smokiness, beef content, and fine grind" as what makes pepperoni unique, but he's hardly authoritative—and he immediately goes on to suggest that this means pepperoni comes from the Midwest (it doesn't) and is influenced by Thüringer Rosters (highly improbable) because there are no smoked sausages anywhere in Italy (there are plenty—and surely he's at least heard of Bologna-style mortadella?) So, it would be disingenuous to use that to cite my opinion. --157.131.246.136 (talk) 05:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences between pepperoni and italian salami/sausage varieties 

message: fyi: "packaged pepperoni" picture shows a german made, polish sold salami that's flavoured with chili (in german: pepperoni)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mad420 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture
Talk:Music from Big Pink

message: what's the album title mean? Akb4 10:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Answer now in the article. (John User:Jwy talk) 12:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: If we can get clear rights to do so, [this picture] would help explain! (John User:Jwy talk) 12:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's two answer's to that. First it says the album was recorded in 'Big Pink', and then that it actually recorded in New York.--82.141.118.38 (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

text: That opening paragraph completely contradicts itself. Can someone who has knowledge here clarify it? Cfrydj (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  title? 

message: When, exactly, was Richard Manuel's In a Station recorded?   A lot of this song reminds me of the Chambers Brothers' People Get Ready, a song that got a lot of airplay at about the same time that The Band's hit was selling.   The main article could be improved if there were a paragraph or two on the actual dates of the song's composition, recording, and distribution.  216.99.219.53 (talk) 22:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similar sounding song? 

message: Should we change 'West Saugerties' to 'Saugerties'? It gives off the idea that West Saugerties is its own independent entity, and having lived here my whole life, it is not, it is just a part of Saugerties.
Remsense (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest linking it to West Saugerties, New York which explains it is a hamlet?  I'm not sure the distinction is important to those that don't click through here? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 22:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is, I don't feel it's worthwhile in a town of under 20k people, to specify which part of such a small town. Perhaps if it was New York City, saying Manhattan would be a worthwhile endeavor. Remsense (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it is notable enough to have its own article here, why not?  Let's see what others say. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 02:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location
Talk:John Ambrose Fleming

message: The coding of the quotation from the eulogy is messed up. How long is the quotation - just the first para or all 3 paras? --ukexpat (talk) 14:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotation from eulogy 

message: It seems to me what Fleming is known for today is the invention of the hot cathode diode vacuum tube, or kenotron, and this should be placed prominently in the lead paragraph.  This is surely more important than that he was an amateur photographer and climber.  His invention of the Right Hand Rule might also be noted there.  --ChetvornoTALK 13:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Why doesn't lead paragraph mention his most notable achievements?

message: Please let us know more about Fleming  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.125.234.215 (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  more 

message: Fleming developed these rules which relate to current flow in conductors, and related forces and magnetic fields. 
However, there is also a right hand rule which sets out the convention for vectors and rotations in physics and mechanics.
The "right hand rule" link from this article leads to the general physics/mechanics rule, and the fact that there are two right hand rules is far from clear there.
Can someone that knows the definitions and differences for certain sort this out?82.29.215.181 (talk) 09:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've had a go. I, too, find the article on the Right-hand rule isn't the clearest article on Wikipedia. But, luckily, I found two others on Fleming's left hand rule for motors, and Fleming's right hand rule (note the curious asymmetry, there), and these appear to do the job a lot better. TheAMmollusc (talk) 12:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Right and Left Hand Rules 

message: I believe he had published additional books or booklets opposing evolution. Forgotten books just released this:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/evidence-things-not-seen-revelation/dp/0649355660
There is another in the Sidmouth Museum which I'm not sure if it is the original of this book, or yet another booklet on the same topic.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.158.52 (talk) 13:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography Incomplete? 
Talk:Anterior cruciate ligament

message: I'm not sure that any sports genre in particular is more or less apt to this injury. I've seen it in all major and minor American sports. Edited to to reflect that it's a common injury to atheletes in general. I hope that acceptable to everyone.
The medial collateral ligament is "the most frequently injured knee ligament overall".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.123.245.226 (talk) 01:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Athletes

message: Is the diagram a left or a right knee?
: Right. --WS 00:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Right or Left?

message: ** Arcadian ** Some of the article bit that I added was redundant to that other entry which I was not aware of, but in terms of the anatomy of the knee in relation to the cruciate ligament, it may be useful to be on this page.  It discussed not just the injury but also the relationships of the cruciate ligaments in the knee with the menisci and also the collateral ligaments (however, I think I was wrong in saying that they are attached to the menisci as it looks like they are attached to the intercondylar eminence and not directly to the MM or LM.  Perhaps you, as a medical student, would want to write something about the ACL and its relationship to other parts of the knee without getting to into injury then?
::As I mentioned in my edit summary, if you want to add a overview of the topic on this page, I have no objection to that. --Arcadian 04:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anatomy

message: Please can you inform me which will e the most effictive way to get my knee back to 100% level which i was
[Old rugby player]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.41.30.38 (talk) 07:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably best to see a doctor about that. 69.42.7.98 (talk) 00:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recoverys 

message: Hi. I would like to see this stub expanded in the following areas-
*Different types of ACL ruptures
*Causes
*Possible reasons females have a higher rate of ACL rupture
*Treatment options
If anyone would like to work on these with me or has other ideas, please let me know. 
Eng 314 (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanding current information 

message: Someone who knows what they're talking about, please fix this article, the ACL is not in the brain!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.185.0 (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix the article 

message: Was there some info edited out here? "Lateral rotational movements in sports like these...." There are no accompanying sports.72.205.238.27 (talk) 03:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph 3 

message: Formal request has been received to merge the articles Anterior cruciate ligament injury and Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction into Anterior cruciate ligament, dated November 2018. Proposer's Rationale: These articles are all about the same thing, but two of them are just about the injury and surgery. Pinging proposer  Discuss here. Richard3120 (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal
Talk:Linear congruence theorem

message: Sorry to make something that seems easy a bit more confusing, but the steps taken to solve the system of congruences (the steps are known as the Chinese remainder theorem, by the way) only work if the bases (numbers being used as mod's) are relatively prime. In the example mod 4 and mod 6 are both used. Both these have a HCF of 2, not one, so they are not relatively prime.
They can be decomposed into relatively prime congruences, but I'm not sure how to do that (I was searching for a way to do it when I stumbled across this page) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.233.5 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 13 March 2003
:This works in the given example because the equations can be divided by the GCD which yields a system where all moduli are coprime: 2x ≡ 2 (mod 6) <=> x ≡ 1 (mod 3) and 2x ≡ 4 (mod 8) <=> x ≡ 2 (mod 4), leaving equations (mod 3), (mod 7) and (mod 4), with pairwise coprime "bases". Another criterion concerning solvability of a system (when the "bases" are not coprime) is given in Chinese remainder theorem. — MFH:Talk 00:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Center for Media and Democracy

message: User:67.168.24.27's edits are unneccessary and POV, please come someone revert to the last version by Meelar - or tell me how, so I can do it in future. If it's just by normal editing then can someone inform me of that. -Erolos 19:14, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, my bad. I didn't read the second paragraph, because the first seemed just to be adding to the already unneccessarily large amount of POV criticism - thanks for removing it. The second paragraph is well-stated. -Erolos 13:47, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  New POV Edit 

message: "Opponents of both CMD and its Disinfopedia" Can we cahnge this to include specific examples? The "critics of the opponents" were clearly Stauber & co  so I changed that bit. Rich Farmbrough 22:08, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words... 

message: If any of the Villiage Voice review is authoritative on this subject, then the whole thing is authoritative. However, maybe it would maintain this article's NPOV better if this sentence were added at the end: "You're not paranoid, however, if they really are out to get you." ô¿ô 21:20, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the use of the word "paranoid" 

message: "Critics of CMD have challenged the organization's credibility as research group. They argue that its founders, Stauber and Rampton, propagate a partisan political agenda."
"Critics of CMD" become weasel words in the context of Jstanley's recent edits. The village voice article sited does not challenge the organizations credibility as a research group. I reverted the article to the previous where Brian Cartmel is sited as a source for these accusations (Rich Farmbrough had asked for a source on the opponents). Grice 21:01, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent edits
Talk:Bronco

message: I think this needs to be a disambiguation page.  -- Zoe
: me too, done 213.51.209.230 00:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: .

message: Please see Talk:Bucking horse#Merger proposal.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposed
Talk:Elliptical polarization

message: Source of original text: Federal Standard 1037C, MIL-STD-188 and MIL-STD-2196
— JIP | Talk 15:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I reverted an edit that altered the article to describe elliptical and circular polarization as part of a broader category called "helical polarization". I'm not sure this is correct: isn't "helical polarization" just a synonym for "circular polarization"? It's worth mentioning that elliptical and circular polarizations have chirality while linear polarization does not, but I don't think this is best handled by creating a new category of polarization. At the least, a citation is needed to show that this classification is actually used in a reliable source.--Srleffler (talk) 04:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Helical polarization 

message: Hello! 
This bot has detected that this page contains an image, :Image:Elliptical_polarization_schematic.png, in a raster format. A replacement is available as a Scalable vector graphic (SVG) at :File:Polarisation (Elliptical).svg. If the replacement image is suitable please edit the article to use the vector version. Scalable vector graphics should be used in preference to raster for images that can easily represented in a vector graphic format. If this bot is in error, you may leave a bug report at its talk page Thanks SVnaGBot1 (talk) 10:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Image:Elliptical_polarization_schematic.png]] 

message: I made an edit that was reverted with the comment "you need to be clear about why you think your version is correct". My original edit was made "to more closely match the wording in Standard 1037C", which states "polarization, is elliptical and is traced in a clockwise or counterclockwise sense, as viewed in the direction of propagation".
Regardless of sign convention, the wording on this page should match this terminology, as "in the direction of propagation" is unambiguous, whereas "into the propagating wave" is quite ambiguous. RegulusMagnus (talk) 13:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description of polarization direction 

message: Could mention optical astronomy and radio astronomy - both measure the % of linear and circular polarised radiation. Maybe just a see-also unless they actually refer to it as EP ? - Rod57 (talk) 13:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could mention optical and radio astronomy 

message: The figure shows theta as the axis orientation angle but phi is correct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Polarisation_ellipse.svg Farhad.mazlumi (talk) 08:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like the drawing may not be correct. It was added to the article in 2014, separately from the math. --Srleffler (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong notation for axis orientation in figure
Talk:Infectious mononucleosis

message: Article says that "About 45 out of 100,000 people develop mono each year in the United States" and that "Nearly 95% of people have been infected by the time they are adults."   
These two rates don't make sense, 95% by adulthood is over 5,000 per 100,000 each year.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.99.106.142 (talk) 07:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed the wording a bit. The 45/100k is for infectious mono while the 95% covers all degrees of EBV infection.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 20:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disease rate 

message: Often we structure the lead in the same order as the body of the text. Thus moved society and culture stuff and history to the 4th paragraph. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: In the majority of the English-speaking world - and, for that matter, the rest of the world as well - this is colloquially known exclusively as glandular fever. The term Mono, and Mononucleosis, is exclusive to the United States, and to a lesser extent Canada, and is almost completely unknown outside of those countries. Shouldn't the page reflect this, rather than pretending the reverse is true? Khardankov (talk) 08:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glandular fever - Mono is an exclusive Americanism. 

message: Do you, or most people, get immune for life, or for a period of time, once you've had the infection? Is it the same whether you've been symptomatic or not? Maybe the article answers those questions, but I haven't found the answers - and I think it should answer them.--Nø (talk) 08:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Immunity?