lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:No. 23 Squadron RAF

message: I can't pin down exactly on what date 23 Squadron moved to England in 1944 and where they were deployed in May 1944, just prior to their transfer to 100 Group in June. Dapi89 (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Both of the Halley books and Rawlings should give full lists of dates against locations. I havn't got access to my sources at the moment, but hopefully should be able to get a look at my 1980 edition of Halley's Squadrons of the Royal Air Force at the weekend.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. Dapi89 (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the 1980 edition of 'Squadrons of the Royal Air Force', the squadron left for the UK on 19 May 1944, the next recorded base being Little Snoring from 2 June,the Squadron joining 100Group the previous day. (pp. 51-2).Nigel Ish (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Grand. It would appear then that they were not involved in Operation Steinbock. I can't find any records through Bowman or Franks that they made a claim. From this date, it appears they were in transit or reorganising, at least until 29 May when the offensive ended. Dapi89 (talk) 10:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operating ground 

message: https://twitter.com/RoyalAirForce/status/1151488535763046400
BlueD954 (talk) 14:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reformation
Talk:No. 2 Squadron RAF

message: After the first night of operations BBC showed footage of 2 Sqaudron Tornados.  Was this archive footage or is 2 sqd being used for no-fly zone enforcement?
Anon user (talk) 10:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Libyan no-fly zone

message: Is there confirmation that the new Typhoon equipped squadron has actually been formed? Currently the article used a December 2014 reference stating that the changeover will take place on 9 January, but we don't have a reference saying the change has actually happened. Without a reliable source stating that the change has taken place, we really shouldn't change the article to state that the squadron operates the Typhoon. (Similar issues will apply to 12 Squadron).Nigel Ish (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont think the Typhoon squadron forms until 1 April 2015 and the Tornado squadron disbands on 31 March 2015 MilborneOne (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking for a reliable source but I think they have gone to plan "B" and 2 Sqn/Tornado has become 12 Sqn and 2 Sqn/Typhoon has been reformed. MilborneOne (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

text: (ec) See  - apparently the Tornado equipped 2 Squadron was due to be renumbered as 12 Squadron with a new 2 Squadron forming on the Typhoon. There appears to be no coverage on the RAF or MOD websites however.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've found this which states that the deed has been done - but I'm not sure whether technically this counts as a WP:RS. It looks like someone in the MOD Press Office has been asleep.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typhoon? 

message: I have changed Farnborough to being in Hampshire, but perhaps I should have left Hampshire and changed the locality. Could someone with access to the book concerned please check the site of foundation? Farnborough Hampshire, or perhaps Larkhill Wiltshire? SovalValtos (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It was at Farnborough Aerodrome from a Royal Engineers unit when the RFC was formed. MilborneOne (talk) 12:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foundation 
Talk:Kamloops (provincial electoral district)

message: I would like to point out that Claude Richmond was first elected to this seat in a 1981 by-election.  Details at http://www.elections.bc.ca/elections/electoral_history/32ge1979-3.html.  Is there any precedence as to whether or not it is appropriate to include such information on the page: Kamloops (provincial electoral district)? Cam Finnigan 12:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:No. 18 Squadron RAF

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.raf.mod.uk/organisation/18squadron.cfm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  16:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: Can someone please change the title to 18 (Bomber) Squadron.
It was never 'Burma'.
I have tried to Undo this change but I don't have the rights. It was a page move apparently.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TopGun1066 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved it back to No. 18 Squadron RAF as it was before. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  18 (Bomber) Squadron!
Talk:Mabel Loomis Todd

message: It says in the article that Emily Dickinson "is said to have had to witness audibly the ongoing affair, and to have been routinely displaced from her place of creative work to provide it an ongoing venue.[2]" It then says that Emily Dickinson never met Mabel Todd. What does "witness audibly the ongoing affair" mean and if they didn't meet how could she witness it? Also, if Dickinson was "displaced from her place of creative work" does that mean she left the house because her brother and Todd were there? This sentence makes no sense at all.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.151.233 (talk) 07:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I had the exact same two questions and was about to post them on the Talk page, and then I saw you had beaten me to it.  Almost two years without an answer....  — Lawrence King (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It means that the affair happened in Emily's house, but she remained in a separate room  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:9304:CB00:D13:1D91:28D9:1E30 (talk) 22:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't get this
Talk:Darlin' Cory

message: This is a good article. Unfortunately I created "One night As I Lay On My Bed" without realising that this article existed. That article is more comprehensive. I suggest that the two articles should be merged. Ogg 12:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ogg, see my note on your talk page. I posted it before I read this note. -- Chironomia 06:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As per my comments on my own page, I now think that Dalin' Corey deserves it's own separate article. I withdraw my request. It is still possible that it might be remotely related to the song "One Night As Lay On My Bed". Ogg 08:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Care to add that the group "Gangstagrass" uses the theme from Darlin' Cory in their Single "I'm Gonna Put You Down"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayrzszAfbnM  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.244.139.230 (talk) 10:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You're referring to their parody of the "Darlin' Cory" chorus, with the altered lyrics, "I'm gonna put you down", instead of "Gonna lay Darlin' Cory down". Is there a source out there we can incorporate into the article, instead of relying solely on original research? Ibadibam (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cover by Gangstagrass
Talk:No. 9 Squadron RAF

message: From my talk page:
Why have you completely changed the reference format on this article? You have used the excuse "homogenised the format of the citations" to completely change the format of all references and citations to a form that wasn't in use at all. Where is the consensus for such a change? What was wrong with the existing format?Nigel Ish (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There was clearly an established reference style, but it is clear that some editors feel that they can force the efn style on an article. Clearly my presence here is unwelcome.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: https://twitter.com/RoyalAirForce/status/1017012567062048768
Sammartinlai (talk) 12:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  second RAF Tranche 1 Squadron 

message: http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-and-typhoon-partner-raf-s-new-backbone?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20190122_AW-05_878&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_2&utm_rid=CPEN1000001745486&utm_campaign=18178&utm_medium=email&elq2=3ee159959e9d47b183b2fc795d877b1f
"The first of these will become active with 9 Sqdn. this May, dedicated to the QRA and red-air aggressor training mission."
Requires subscription
BlueD954 (talk) 12:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: See https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/770656/16194.pdf this. BlueD954 (talk) 12:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unbroken service: re-equipped at 0931hrs 1 April 2019, not disbanded / reformed 
Talk:Donna Wilkes

message: This article states that DW was born on 11/11/1959, so does IMDB. But the fansite donnawilkesonline.com tells that she was born on 11/14/1958. Are there reliable sources for each of this dates? The fansite affirms that they're in contact with DW. --W-alter (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: i would love to date her i am 55 from windsor canada 2001:1970:5D5D:7200:93F:6F63:8A4D:6C61 (talk) 09:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: i love donna she is very beautiful and sexy and smart 2001:1970:5D5D:7200:93F:6F63:8A4D:6C61 (talk) 09:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthday? 

message: I don't know who tagged that line for a citation, but if she was doing research around teenage prostitutes and runaways in Los Angeles for her role Angel, why would she also go all the way to Southeast Florida? Unless by "Hollywood Police Department" she was referring to an LAPD precinct in Hollywood, Los Angeles. ---------User:DanTD (talk)  11:39, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hollywood Police Department?
Talk:Keri

message: This page does not mention in any form the current status of these laws. The author also mistakenly called Niddah a midrashic source, which it is not. JFW | T@lk 22:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I came to this page hyperlinked by a reference to a village called Keri in the Indian state of Goa. The reference occurs in an article on Indian singer Kesarbai Kerkar. Weblogan (talk) 06:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: . A hatnote linking to Keri (disambiguation) was added to this page on 5/Aug/12 by . Thanks. -- -- -- 20:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation required

message: The stranger part is that most of what belongs here is now listed under Tznius. Basically the Rabbis prohibited inciting the libido, except in the context of Marital matters.Mzk1 (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong place
Talk:No. 19 Squadron RAF

message: Following a discussion on Template_talk:RAF_Squadrons, I have renamed all squadron-specific articles (except this one) which used Roman numerals for the squadron number in the title, to use the Arabic numeral representation instead, for consistency with other squadrons. Of course, where an unofficial squadron tradition has existed of using the Roman numeral equivalent, this should be mentioned in the article text. However I can't move this article to No. 19 Squadron RAF as that redirect has some edit history. Hence, this move will need the attention of an adminstrator. Letdorf (talk) 12:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move
Talk:No. 92 Squadron RAF

message: This link (in the section Cold War) points to an article about a Dutch doo-wop duo! Other references to the Blue Diamonds aerobatic team in Wikipedia link to this article (92 Squadron). Rather than change the link to a self referential link, I have left it to others to resolve 122.107.58.27 (talk) 08:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blue Diamonds link 

message: The looping of 18 hunters by the Blue Diamonds is defined as a record, however the Black Arrows apparently looped 22 aircraft.  So either the Black Arrows hold the record or the Blue Diamonds do, as I have seen this fact repeated in one of the aviation magazines I think it might be the Black Arrows, this has the knock on effect that the Blue Diamonds have no such record as the Black Arrows pre date the Blue Diamonds.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.138.179 (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blue Diamonds 18 aircraft loop
Talk:Sarsfield

message: Perhaps someone at AFC should have checked to see whether an article on this subject already existed? Grutness...wha? 01:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was me that did not find the article, I will be bold and do the merge and turn this one into a redirect. Graeme Bartlett 02:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Operation Phantom Strike

message: --Kumioko 12:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007 signature 

message: This article reads like a press release from the Army in Iraq. It treats the US and allied forces differently from the AQI. Specifically, casualties among the latter are duly noted, but there is no mention of any losses suffered by the good guys. Maybe they can't be stated for security reasons, but if that's the case, then say so.
There is also some trouble with the grammar. The verb tenses are messed up; although the operation is described as being in the past, present tense is used frequently, but not consistently, in the opening paragraphs.
PKKloeppel (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: I have tackled some of the outstanding grammar issues and have removed the various press release quotes, which were the main contributors to the "press release" and tense issues identified above.  I think this solves checklist B4.  However, the Marne operations are almost totally unreferenced, which means it still fails on B1.Monstrelet (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving toward B class
Talk:No. 17 Squadron RAF

message: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-f-35-lightning-ii-testing-begins-in-the-us
Phd8511 (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  news 
Talk:No. 11 Squadron RAF

message: The picture should be a Eurofighter Typhoon instead of a retired fighter.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 09:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an encyclopedia and any aircraft operated by 11 squadron is relevant, that said if you have a free image of a Typhoon in 11 Squadron markings then it can be added as well as the Lightning image. MilborneOne (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:No. 50 Squadron RAF

message: Temporary replacement page started at Talk:No. 50 Squadron RAF/Temp - feel free to chip in.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just moved this as it stood to the No. 50 Squadron RAF article proper to remove the big ugly copyvio tag. Nick-D (talk) 07:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: By moved Nick-D meant copied. I deleted the original article under CSD G6 and moved the temp page to the original title, thus losing the copyvio from the history. 09:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temp Page 

message: Hi, good work on rewriting this article. Just a minor point. The article uses interchangable terms: First World War and World War I as well as Second World War and World War II. Either is fine, in my opinion, but consistency is important. I suggest that if World War I is used that World War II should be, or conversely if First World War is used, Second World War should be. Anyway, I'll leave it up to the original contributor to decide. Finally, if you are considering taking this to GA, the lead will need to be expanded. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Consistency of terminology
Talk:The Laois Voice

message: Serious bias?
No, just a really bad newspaper on the brink of bankruptcy.
All the voice titles are in trouble.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.246.219 (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Alcoa World Alumina and Chemicals

message: I have removed the following external links, as the article doesn't have anything about the Wagerup alumina refinery. If some wants to add it, go ahead.
* Something in the Air - The Clash Between a Giant Industry that makes an essential product and a small community dogged by illness and struggling for survival
* Protesters plan to lodge Supreme Court writ over Alcoa smelter
* Alcoa expands despite toxins
Wongm 12:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wagerup alumina refinery 
Talk:No. 90 Squadron RAF

message: I've added details of the 90 Squadron B-17s on the RAF West Raynham page as there are sources indicating that they were operating at Raynham at that time.  However, there are also equally strong sources placing them at RAF Polebrook.  As West Raynham was still a grass strip at that time I'm just a bit dubious about heavies operating from there.  Anyone able to confirm or deny whether they were there?  If they were at Polebrook, was 90 Squadron also active at Raynham at the same time?  If so, what were they flying?  Thanks. DiverScout (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 90 Squadron and B17s
Talk:Tracking error

message: What is the beta in the formula?
There is no beta in the formula for tracking error. 94608Katsu (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Formula

message: The description mentions a fallacy of ex post TE in a case where active returns in multiple periods do not change.  The standard deviation of the active returns would be zero.  This part is true.
But the second part which says "Such a series has 0 standard deviation, i.e., there is no variability or dispersion in the active returns. However, the portfolio is not truly tracking the benchmark; it is, in fact, increasingly diverging from its benchmark." is not true - it is not increasingly diverging, but diverging at a constant rate. 
If a series of active returns over multiple periods is always 3% per period, there is zero standard deviation of active return, because the active return is highly consistent, not variable.  This series of active returns would produce zero TE.
Zero TE by definition means there is no change in the similarity to the benchmark; instead the similarity (or dissimilarity) does not vary, it is consistent.
An investment which is increasingly dissimilar to the benchmark would not have zero TE. Instead of a pattern of active return which is like a series of 3% per period, it would have either a series like 3%, 4%, 5%, 6%, 7% active return, showing that it is increasingly diverging from its benchmark, and demonstrating an increasingly higher TE with each observation. 
I cannot cite a source for the above, I am just doing the math and using logic to apply the formula. I am an investment professional who uses such formulas in practical application.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94608Katsu (talk • contribs) 23:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing phrase in the description
Talk:Garden sunbird

message: I have a new picture of this bird, found in South Asia ( India). How can I post it here? Rohann pal (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  New picture found. 

message: Contesting this. It remains Olive-backed Sunbird in IOC (version 13.2), which, as an international authority, is wikipedia's preferred ornithological authority. Ebird doesn't have any juristiction here. Please revert. - MPF (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put in a technical move request to take this back to Olive-backed sunbird. Sub31k (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Undiscussed move to "Garden Sunbird"
Talk:Oriental magpie-robin

message: Note the statement "they often feed in groups of up to 6 members" isn't factual. Both male and female Copsychus saularis are solitary, highly territorial and prone to fighting. They are native to my region and I see many of them in the wild in different habitats everyday but I haven't seen they forming any "pack" with more than 2 members for the last 20 years. They only form pairs during breeding seasons. My observation is in accordance with discussions with all aviculturists and bird breeders - note although they have been bred for years in captivity and most of the aggressive ones have killed each other off leaving the more placid temperate ones to breed in aviaries, adult group feeding is not observed in both captivity and in the wild, making this statement "they often feed in groups of up to 6 members" dubious at best. I know experience shared by aviculturists and bird breeders is not a reliable source but I am raising the problem here for future reference and improvement. BigCat82 (talk) 06:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. The bit about aerial insect catching is also dubious insertion into previously well-referenced content. Shyamal (talk) 06:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Have removed that content - in fact most of the content added by User:Abhay ravi was of the same quality - uncited and badly written. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oriental_Magpie-Robin&diff=501117393&oldid=498803004 Shyamal (talk) 07:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Group feeding not factual 

message: The article contains these two sentences, one of which should be removed:
"The calls of many other species may be imitated as part of their song.[20]"
and
"They appear to use elements of the calls of other birds in their own songs.[22]"
These duplicate each other: one should be removed (preferably the second...) and the citation of the second attached to the first...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.185.175 (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, removed the repetition and retained the cite. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  duplication should be removed
Talk:Military Cryptanalytics

message: I think it's worth merging them. That latter books are based on Friedman's work, and were done with Friedman's help, if I'm not mistaken. Not to knock Friedman's immense knowledge, mind you, but I think there's enough similarity for one article. Mmernex 13:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Friedman didn't help to any appreciable extent with the production of Callimahos' series, other than providing the original series from which Callimahos' was derived.  To me it depends on whether it was intended that the Friedman-book article ever be expanded to say more than it currently does.  As it stands, it could simply be redirected to the Callimahos-book article and the latter augmented with the Friedman book listings (ISBN etc.).  The distinction between the two series needs to be kept clear, however.  If, on the other hand, more was supposed to be said eventually about the Friedman book specifically, then I think it would be best maintained as a separate article. — DAGwyn 17:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge articles? 