lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Dan Boneh

message: *
Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 20:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better sourcing needed 

message: Well, he does not teach Cryptography II but always postpones it. This course has been announced to start in April 2013, then June, August, October, January, April, June and now it is planned for August 2014...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.178.168.100 (talk) 09:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coursera classes 

message: His full name is actually not Daniel Boneh, but just Dan Boneh (דן בונה). I tried to edit the page directly, but it looks like it was immediately changed back.
171.66.3.242 (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored your edit; thanks for making it and for continuing to push the issue after it was undone. We can discuss this, but unless someone can come up with reliable sources contradicting what you say, I think it should stay as "Dan". —David Eppstein (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Name 

message: Best I can tell, the Terman award is for Stanford students, not faculty. The confusion might spring from https://engineering.stanford.edu/students-academics/academics/student-awards/terman-awards-2015-2016, where Dan Boneh is listed as an advisor, not an awardee. I am removing the Terman Award from his list of awards. If I am in error, please add it back in with a source explaining the nature of the award and showing that he won it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenKuykendall (talk • contribs) 15:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terman Award
Talk:Medovuha

message: whoops- there is already an article Medovukha - a Russian mead.  Should this article be merged?
* Ukraine Cuisine needs to link to one of them
* a redirect to this alternate spelling too
I think so- this article seems to be, basically, a far more complete version of the other article. Randaly 00:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

message: I carried out the merger, mainly because this article, Medovuha, referred almost exclusively to Medovukha, and Medovukha had already been picked up by some Wikiprojects, so now there are people to look after this article. I also substantially reworked what was on this article before I moved it over, making the English a bit more readable. 
If I've upset anyone moving the page, please accept my apologies and let me know, but this page was in such shocking page, I thought a merger and rework was for the best. Cricketgirl 19:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect and rewording
Talk:Sebek (Stargate Novels)

message: I trust the content of this page does not "violate any rules." --Promus Kaa 01:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but this character is not notable and you are not following the rules for how to create articles on fictional characters which states that all characters should be lumped into the article about the work of fiction, in this case Stargate literature, until the character's section becomes too large. Then the characters should be put into a seperate meta-article for all characters of that work until one or more become overly large. At that point the individual characters that have an abundant amount of information may be given their own articles. Take this and Hathor and put them into Stargate literature then proceed from there. If one character's section starts getting too big for the page then create a meta-article. Konman72 02:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I understand, I got in trouble for notability when I first got here too, which is why I'm trying to help out (realize that if you continued on this path someone would stumble onto one of these and then slap them all up for AfD, which is something you don't want ;) ). How about this? Just expand all you want on Stargate Literature and then, once it is all done, I'm sure we can decide whether or not to make a seperate page and for what. The problem is that the books are not notable enough to warrant their own page (hell, they, along with the SG-1 and Atlantis series were deemed non-notable, which is why they were combined), however, if you make substantial additions then perhaps something can be done, and if they end up getting nominated for deletion then you can just point to that and say, "hey, we tried to combine them but there was too much information". Trust me, that will go a long way. Konman72 03:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I can't wait either. I hope the page is done soon, I want to read it lol. Good luck. Konman72 07:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made this and Hathor redirect to Stargate literature. I was waiting for you to do it but you seem busy at the moment since you haven't editted in a few days lol. I tried to carry over all the information but the mythology section here was original research with no citations. If you work on the section a little it can be added to the main page. Just find some citations to reliable sources and you will be fine. Konman72 08:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rules
Talk:Air Force (film)

message: The authentic atmosphere of the Film is ruined near the end where John Garfield, his plane crashed and enraged at seeing a Japanese Zero strafe a helpless Paratrooper, takes a .50 caliber machine gun and tries his luck at hip-shooting the Zero. In reality, the recoil of the machine gun would've knocked Garfield flatter than the Zero. --71.227.142.64 01:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Obvious Goof 

message: It's commonly noted that George Lucas copied the compositions of shots in Air Force's battle scenes, in Star Wars.  (As he used very specific elements from many classic movies.)  Specifically, the shots over the shoulders of the "Mary Ann"'s turret gunners are the templates for shots where the SW heroes use the Millennium Falcon's turret guns against Imperial Fighters.  I don't have references yet where George Lucas, or someone from the production, says this directly; I think I have seen them in the past, but could be wrong.  Here are some third-party references on the web:
* http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/1053024/star_wars_the_original_mashup_movie.html
* http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/airforce.php
* http://www.noripcord.com/reviews/film/air-force
IMDB states that a clip from AF is shown in Empire of Dreams, The Story of the 'Star Wars' Trilogy.  This might have more direct acknowledgement; I don't know.
I'll try to find better sources, if I get a chance.  I think that this is a notable aspect of Air Force's impact, and could be an interesting piece for the article.  If anyone gets to it first, great.  Ale And Quail (talk) 23:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of a large number of wartime gun camera scenes is often cited; I have never seen a direct reference to Air Force. FWiW, not saying, however, it isn't possible. Bzuk (talk) 09:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Thanks.  It sure looks like it, but I don't want to drift into OR. :)  The above citations might do, but I'll wait for now, and hope to run into something more direct.  Ale And Quail (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turret-gun battle imitated in ''Star Wars''
Talk:EbXML

message: I dont support the merge.  tytytytyThere is extensive duplication between the two articles, and of the two, this article has many more links to it, and would therefore seem to be the logical choice to retain. RayGates 01:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  However I dont understand why the article was called ebXML Architecture.  Any idea's?  John Vandenberg 00:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds like a good plan.  If anyone has objections, please raise them in the next week, otherwise the re-arrangment will go ahead. John Vandenberg 13:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it has been over a week I decided to be bold and move it myself.  Hope everyone's okay with it. Radagast83 05:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. John Vandenberg 12:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge of ebXML 

message: Can some one more in the know determine if "id" (or ID) is appropriate here or should it be "is"?Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably ID then, for identifier. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "ID" or "is" ?
Talk:Nonchalant

message: So I arrived here based on a google search for "nonchalant" to check its spelling, and noticed this person has 2 different birth years listed (1973 in the article and 1967 in the box on the right).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.88.235.102 (talk) 10:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age 

message: I think this needs one, but I'm no expert.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.55.234 (talk) 06:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation
Talk:Crisis (disambiguation)

message: Comic books aren't usually grouped together with more serious literature. Also, some readers might question whether the bands listed thus far (all within a narrow range of popular music) actually make music. I'll create a new category for these entries called "Popular Culture" so that the categories will be better defined. Woodlandpath 01:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for moving bulleted items: 

message: Anonymous poster removed the word Periodicals from "Literature and Periodicals" heading, with edit summary that Periodicals ARE Literature.
Periodicals might contain literature (in the form of short stories, essays, etc.). But the difference between periodicals (ie, that they are issued periodically, that they often contain contributions from numerous authors, etc.) and literature is so vast that is hardly bears discussion. All one need do is go into any library and note that there is usually a separate room or wing for the periodicals.
However, I'll leave this edit stand, if only to avoid a revert war.
Woodlandpath 18:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Periodicals = Literature? 

message: As per MOS:DAB, I've removed everything accessible from crisis or :Category:Crises.  Having said which, the crisis page is a big mess, and the :Category:Crises is underpopulated. jnestorius(talk) 12:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed items
Talk:NSU University School

message: The name of this article should be changed from University School of Nova Southeastern University to NSU University School—as is the current name of the institution as of fall 2015. (See http://uschool.nova.edu/). Frevangelion (talk) 03:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change
Talk:Adventist Baptismal Vow

message: A letter to the editor in Spectrum has some interesting information, if it can be verified by reliable sources. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 08:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source 
Talk:Luxeuil Abbey

message: In every modern source I know of, the Vandals are recorded as having been wiped out as a distinct polity in the first half of the 6th century.  And in North Africa, at that.  While some Vandals from the 406 invasion may have settled in Gaul, it seems highly unlikely that their 8th C. descendants would have preserved the ethnic identity to the extent necessary to support this article's description.  Either the old Cath. Enc. is anomalously referring to another 8th C. group as "Vandals," or it's just a plain old error.  Anyone have another source for these "Vandals"? Dppowell 01:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandals? 

message: Is it true that Saint Methodius stayed a while in Luxeuil Abbey around 870 ? --Hubertgui (talk) 09:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Methodius
Talk:Oakland School for the Arts

message: The STAR scores given are confusing.  First, a score out of ten is given; fine.  But then for later years, scores in the hundreds are given, with no clarification.  Were the later scores out of 1000, or what?  Also, STAR is no longer used.  Are there any more recent scores or ranks based on CAASPP, which the Wikipedia STAR article says replaced STAR?79.134.37.73 (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ranking
Talk:List of Watership Down characters

message: I don't think I've actually left any named (minor) character out - by all means add them if I'm wrong! - but several could do with a brief description. Note that word "brief", though: these are minor characters, and we don't want a long paragraph for each of them! Loganberry (Talk) 01:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Incomplete list" 

message: As nice as it is to have a list of every character ever mentioned in the book, it's unnecessary and not very useful. As such, I've moved this article from Minor characters in Watership Down to simply Characters in Watership Down, and I'm going to remove the rabbits that are very minor characters. I'll probably also merge in a few characters who have their own individual articles, because most of those articles simply restate the plot of the book and descriptions of the characters, rather than actually providing any extra information.
If you have any comments or arguments, please leave them below or write on my talk page. Thanks. Mr. Absurd (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes

message: I do not remember a Flyairth in the novel Watership Down.  Is she from Tales of Watership Down, from the movie, or from the TV series? Respectfully, SamBlob (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is Flyairth from? 

message: A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion 
or exclusion of episode and character, as well as other fiction articles. Please 
visit the discussion at 
Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. Ikip (talk) 11:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters

message: Is 'Laburnum' really lapine for 'poison-tree'? Laburnum is an actual English word; it's a type of poisonous tree. This sounds more like the English name (like Hazel etc).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.225.130 (talk) 11:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Laburnum accurate?
Talk:Hyperaemia

message: Functional and Reactive are tiny little articles. They all need to be merged into the general term article, as it is too small as it is as well. Chaldor (talk) 22:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this has been going on for a while and no one was acting on the evident consensus, I have merged the articles. — Guillaume Pelletier ~ 17:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger

message: "Since most of the common nutrients in the body are converted to carbon dioxide when they are metabolized..."
That may not be gibberish, but it's "close enough for government work" and needs to be addressed. Lewis Goudy (talk) 10:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common Nutrients?
Talk:Candlejack

message: It seems that it would make more sense if this were made into a (protected) redirect to the "Enemies" section of the Freakazoid article, seeing as it's the name of a character listed there.--Hogulus 01:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Section redirects do not work. But redirecting to Freakazoid! would work. Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 'course it does. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Week_number&redirect=no 62.253.208.109 10:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Redirecting to a section of an article was a feature added moderately recently. I'm guessing it wasn't possible when Ryulong posted that. --Zarel (talk) 07:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Unprotected the page. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Full Deletion Really Necessary?

message: You'd think if this redirects to the Freakazoid! article, that the Freakazoid! article should at least mention Candlejack... --Zarel (talk) 05:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It does. See the enemies section. Jafeluv (talk) 09:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I couldn't find it with Ctrl+F since it was spelled "Candle Jack". I think that section should say something like "commonly spelled 'Candlejack'" or something to that effect. --Zarel (talk) 07:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  You'd think...
Talk:Battle of San Domingo

message: As a courtesy I am leaving a notice that I am preparing a new, expanded and sourced version of this article in my Userspace (using the current page as a basis). It should be pasted up here in a week or two. If anyone has any comments then by all means drop me a line.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The new version of the article has been copied and pasted onto this one. For those interested in the sequence of edits used in the article's development, see the history of the redirect User:jackyd101/Battle of San Domingo.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion

message: How is this the last naval engagement, a number of different fleets clashed throughout the period between 1806-1814?
There's numerous war of 1812 engagements, not to mention the battle of Athos, Dardanelles, the battle of lissa, and so forth. Wastedgrunt36
I believe it should read last major open water fleet engagement. There were many other engagements, but none were in open water and between fleets of ships-of-the-line. I do agree that the wording is ambiguous and should be altered. I shall think on it. Corneredmouse (talk) 09:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A very belated reply - I've no problem with  the change as made, but should note that the original text described this as "the last fleet engagement of the war". In the engagements listed above, only Athos was a fleet battle and that was part of a different, contiguous, war. The United States didn't have a battle fleet during the war of 1812, just a handful of very successful raiding frigates. The Dardanelles was not a battle between fleets but an engagement between a British fleet and Turkish shore defences while Lissa was fought between two frigate squadrons. San Domingo was the last battle of the Napoleonic Wars to feature a direct engagement between two fleet sized forces (and small ones at that). Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Last Fleet engagement?
Talk:Keith-Albee Theatre

message: A recent edit forced me to notice that this page needs serious work.  The wording is repetitive, and the sections are not clearly defined.  I undid the edit because it actually made some things worse (eliminating references and disrupting the flow) but the contributor had the right idea.  I'm willing to start working on the issues, but I invite others to participate as well.Oherian (talk) 14:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: i agree, i only came by because of that other theater in the chain. tried to give a good nrhp infobox.  Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 22:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you!  That's not something that I know very much about.  I'm going to start working on revising the article itself as soon as I have a little time. Oherian (talk) 14:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs revision
Talk:Action of 18 November 1809

message: As a courtesy I am leaving a notice that I am preparing a new, expanded and sourced version of this article in my Userspace and it should be pasted up here in about a week. If anyone has any comment then by all means drop me a line.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Text is now complete and in place ahead of schedule. For the history ofthe constuction of this in my user space, see the history of the redirect User:Jackyd101/Action of 18 November 1809.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: The usual confusion over tonnage which afflicts non-nautical authors was present in this article.  The British East Indiamen were approximately 800 tons burthen, which is a measure of volume, not weight.  The displacement (weight) of a ship cannot be determined from it's burthen; an East Indiaman of 800 tons burthen would have displaced around 1200 - 1400 tons (displacement is always in long tons or tonnes, except for vessels on US inland waterways).  Ship builders of the early 1800's did not calculate displacement, since there was no conceivable use for such a measurement.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:300:CA70:0:0:0:32A5 (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  British ship "weight"...
Talk:INF Clairefontaine

message: Please note that the INF Clairefontaine is only a section of the CNF Clairefontaine. Another section of the CNF is for example the IFF (Institut de Formation du Football). Also, the CNF hosts all the 17 national teams and a division of the DTA (Direction Technique de l'Arbitrage) and of the DTN (Direction Technique Nationale). All this has nothing to do with the INF, and I think you should create a separate page for the CNF.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Football Lab (talk • contribs) 14:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  INF Clairefontaine
Talk:Active load

message: This is misleading in the article. The active loading technique is not specific to the AC component of the input signal. The common-emitter amplifier's DC gain is also larger thanks to the active load. The active load looks like a high load resistance, not merely a high impedance. Remember what operational amplifiers fundamentally do, and that integrated circuit op amps use active loading! In fact, if anything, there may be less gain for AC of increasing frequencies due to some unwanted capacitance through the active load, giving it a lower impedance.192.139.122.42 (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not just small signals
Talk:Marvel Adventures Spider-Man

message: Spider-man 3 is one of the best #1 games today! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.228.120 (talk • contribs) 
:So?--$UIT 08:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Will this title end with all of the others (except Amazing) in Sept/Oct ? 170.104.115.26 22:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Will this title end with all of the others (except Amazing) in Sept/Oct ? 

message: I removed the cleanup tag, nothign is specified as needing to be cleaned up, though it does consist mainly of long lists.  RJFJR (talk) 13:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup
Talk:United We Stand America

message: I added a specific link to the archived Perot statements, to avoid the debt consolidation distractions the uwsa.com site offers.
It would help if someone could add a reference to print editions of them, to avoid the effect of any changes to the site.  The site's
current ownership is not disclosed by a 'whois' query, making it difficult to ascertain who is behind it.
Current (february 2009) uwsa.com registration:
 Domains by Proxy, Inc.
   DomainsByProxy.com
   15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
   Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
   United States
rhyre (talk) 11:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: UWSA link
Talk:Flying Blind (TV series)

message: The link in this article for actor Robert Bauer directs the reader to Robert Bauer, personal attorney for Barack Obama. Danwaggoner (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong link for Robert Bauer 

message: Did this show originate, or did it just bring to the fore the phrase, “If I told you, I’d have to kill you…”? It was a running gag with the Peter Boyle ex-Secret Service character that that was or had beeen his stock reply to almost all questions (including the young Alicia’s question, “What did you do at work today, Daddy…?”). Jock123 (talk) 08:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  “If I told you, I’d have to kill you…”