lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Advertising agency

message: aQuantive should be removed (acquired in 2007 by Microsoft and no longer operating as an agency)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AQuantive
BKV should be removed (acquired by DRUM Agency in 2018 and subsequently closed without notice or explanation in April, 2020 
Add MightyRoar, Atlanta, Georgia https://www.mightyroar.com within North America
Google should be removed from the list as it is not an advertising agency.
JWT should be removed, or changed to Wunderman Thompson (merged in 2018) https://www.thedrum.com/news/2018/11/26/goodbye-j-walter-154-years-jwt-creative
Sapient should be Publicis Sapient publicissapient.com Kevcsmi31 (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably all right to keep defunct ones in this list since they're still notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2020 

message: I would like to add Williams Whittle to the agency list - we're an ad agency located in Alexandria, VA (AKA DC Metro Area)
Thanks,
Glaelis WWAadvertising (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: The agency needs to be notable enough for an article to be on the list. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2021 

message: The sections on 'agencies' and 'creativity' need substantial revision.
It is no longer true that agencies are paid by the media owners. Agencies are predominantly paid by their clients to plan and buy media, on either a fee or commission basis. Other services are paid for in the same way. The section as currently written describes how agencies worked about a hundred years ago. The major services delivered by a modern agency are creative communications, media planning and buying, design, production, and marketing data and technology services.
The 'creativity' section is borderline meaningless. It's attempting to describe how creativity contributes to advertising effectiveness (by making brands distinctive, memorable and noticeable) but does a very odd job of this.
I've avoided editing as I have a potential conflict of interest (I work for an advertising agency)... but this is an inaccurate reflection of how agencies work as businesses. Alex Steer (talk) 11:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review for accuracy needed 

message: In the History section, the page states the following:
 Volney B. Palmer opened the first American advertising agency, in Philadelphia in 1850. This agency placed ads produced by its clients in various newspapers.
However, the cited source  states that the agency was founded in 1841. Indeed, the History of Advertising page states "In the United States around 1840, Volney B. Palmer set up the first advertising agency in Philadelphia." This should be corrected. Hbmonk (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect date for founding of Volney B. Palmer's advertising agency
Talk:Street Fighter II

message: In § Impact, it says: "Its success inspired a wave of other fighting games, which were initially often labeled as "clones",[147][154] including popular franchises such as Mortal Kombat[155] and Killer Instinct." The [155] ref is an article in The New York Times. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I think verification fails. The article does not state that the success of Street Fighter II inspired the Mortal Kombat franchise. I'm not saying it didn't, just that I think verification fails. Or am I overlooking something? --143.176.30.65 (talk) 10:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verification fails? 

message: AFAIK he is not mentioned in the first 3 SF2 games. Apokrif (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is Akuma mentioned in the article?
Talk:Hitachi

message: Hi, I was wondering if information on Hitachi espionage on IBM could be included within the article? In the early 1980s, the FBI arrested several Hitachi executives in a sting operation and all plead guilty. IBM also won a civil case against Hitachi and was allowed to inspect Hitachi products for a 5 year period to detect design infringements.
Here are some sources on this:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hitachi-Ltd
https://www.nytimes.com/1983/02/09/business/hitachi-guilty-in-ibm-case.html
https://www.upi.com/Archives/1983/02/09/Hitachi-pleads-guilty-apologizes-in-industrial-espionage/4801413614800/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1982/06/23/plot-to-steal-ibm-data-is-charged-to-japanese/8e8ba4f5-d1a9-4e5f-8184-b18a4438c73d/ Donutatwar (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hitachi espionage. 

message: The first few sentences of the Overview section read like marketing statements for Hitachi. It does not have the objective tone that is typical and expected of most Wikipedia articles.    Bortorini (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overview Page Currently Doesn’t Have an Objective Tone
Template talk:Peter Kemp

message: For information, this template was created because a contributor apparently added a number of articles about individual compositions by Johann Strauss II based on CD liner notes written by Mr. Kemp. Mr. Kemp contacted the Wikimedia Foundation to express his concern, but agreed that the texts could remain if he was properly credited in this fashion. The template simplifies placing this text on the articles in question. --Michael Snow 03:20, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OTRS ticket #114610 - . --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Lancelot Link, Secret Chimp

message: BMW M5s? The M5 didn't appear until the 1980s. Marshall Stax 23:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the difference? They were monkeys playing spys in the 70's. That's hilarious!!! 2600:8801:3207:2000:10FF:98AC:AE29:569F (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Car Chases

message: ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  what did they give the chimps to eat to make them talk 

message: Pretty sure they showed it more than just a single time per ep. 76.226.120.139 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 06:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single time on Nick?
Talk:The Adventure of Silver Blaze

message: The Inspectors are not usually counted as clients. You could put "the police" though, I suppose.
As to the villain, Straker cannot truly be called the villain since Holmes is investigating his murder, which turns out to be a death by misadventure. He is a villainous character, to be sure, but I don't think you can call him "The Villain". Kelisi 03:42, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: From Apostrophe: "In general, a good practice is to follow whichever spoken form is judged best: Boss's shoes, Mrs. Jones' hat (or Mrs. Jones's hat, if that spoken form is preferred). In many cases, both spoken and written forms will differ between people." I was always taught that a possessive ending in a hard 's' (or 'z', if you prefer, like 'Charles') takes just an apostrophe to form its possessive. (So titles such as Bridget Jones's Diary (in my opinion) should have been written Bridget Jones' Diary — but then this may have been deliberate to reflect the quirks of the character.) However, obviously everyone has a preference on this so I'm not getting into an edit war — except to state that I think "Holmes's" is an awkward way of saying something that could be communicated with one fewer letter (and indeed syllable). Thus we'll have to agree to disagree. Chris 42 10:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apostrophe 

message: The article says a short film starring Eille Norwood was released in 2001. However, according to IMDB, Norwood's version was released in 1923 and Norwood himself died in 1948. Was there a restoration/re-release in 2001 or is this a simple mistake? I don't have any original research to back up the earlier dates though I have a book with photos of Norwood as Holmes that clearly date from the early 20th century. --Pergish1 (talk) 22:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eille Norwood film version 

message: see: [this page] and the DNA evidence from 2012 :)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.61.241 (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Based on a "true" story? 

message: This article mentions that the title of Mark Haddon's book "The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time" is a quote from Sherlock Holmes in this short story. This is clearly true, but is there a definitive reference for this?
The article also states that the protagonist (in Mark's book - Christopher) mentions Silver Blaze repeatedly in the book. This I believe is false. I cannot find a single mention of the Silver Blaze story in Mark's book, or an explicit reference to the title of either book (though there are many references to Sherlock Holmes).
I propose adjusting the comments regarding the connection between these stories to reflect this. 
Sparkytheteacher (talk) 11:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time 

message: the curious incident 2A00:23EE:1C80:34DC:FC5A:F388:720D:14D7 (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  English
Talk:Royal Society of Canada

message: I fail to grasp the significance of this paragraph.  Is it to indicate who is eligible for Fellowship?  But then, what is the significance of the 5 people named? --dunnhaupt 15:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fellowship

message: The opening paragraph of this article duplicates this source, which includes a clearly incompatible license with "all rights reserved". Barring some showing of permission, this material will need to be rewritten or removed to address these concerns. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright concern 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://rsc-src.ca/rscinfo_what.php http://rsc-src.ca/rscinfo_history.php. 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, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that 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.  SchreyP  (messages) 19:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed
Talk:Flanders Field American Cemetery and Memorial

message: Cut 'n' paste from []. Since this is a U.S. government site, is it PD? --Wtshymanski 03:54, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Source

message: The poem was inspired and written in 1915. The article appears to be about an American cemetary. The U.S. did not enter the War until 1917 so the author did not have any U.S. Casulties in mind when he wrote the poem. Having THAT much content about the poem in this particular article doesn't make a lot of sense. Although a "See Also" link may be valid as the poem has gone on to become a memorial statement about all who went and did not return. Fair Deal 19:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poem

message: I don't think that "Flanders Field" refers to this particular cemetery. It is certainly wrong to crossreference "Flanders Fields" to the cementary wikipedia article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Podmok (talk • contribs) 01:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree entirely. It's spurious borrowed interest. Unless someone can up with very good reasons to refrain, I plan to de-reference the two in the next couple of days. I also think the cemetery article should have more encyclopedic content and less Purple prose. Roger 06:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flanders Field 
Talk:UNIVAC III

message: This could easily be merged with UNIVAC.  I'm a little concerned at the tentative description of classified systems which may or may not have existed...is this encyclopediac? --Wtshymanski 04:09, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is mostly nonsense. There were 96 machines built. It was a successor of the UNIVAC I and UNIVAC II designs and was very definitely a commercial product and in no way classified. The external links are correct though. -- RTC 20:16, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There, that should fill in some details. -- RTC 00:56, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge and Wikify

message: The year 1962 for the introduction of Univac II is incorrect.
I hired on as an electronic technician at Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company in 1960 to help in the repair and maintenance of their Univac II - which had been up and running a few years before I got there.
D.A. Green
nichevoo@hotmail.com
: Sorry, but this is the article on the UNIVAC III, not the UNIVAC II. Yes, the UNIVAC II was introduced in 1958 and so was available when you used it in 1960, but the UNIVAC III was not introduced until 1962. The article is correct. -- RTC 20:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction date
Talk:UNIVAC 418

message: The main UNIVAC article could easily absorb this paragraph. --Wtshymanski 04:11, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe maybe not. -- RTC 20:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, it fits just fine. --Wtshymanski 20:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Could be merged
Talk:Drabble

message: So drabble has nothing to do with the English SF-fan Drunken Rabble Project (which emerged (I believe) from Beccon fandom duing the early 1980s ? --62.25.106.209 07:32, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That was the title of a filk songbook, published sometime around 1990. The publisher is Beccon Publications. So there is a very indirect connection, but nothing significant. British SF fandom is small enough that everyone is pretty closely connect. There was also a British writer and broadcaster named Phil Drabble; I think he died a few years ago. All this seems Googleable. 88.110.243.55 12:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always suspected that the Monty Python game was named after novelist Margaret Drabble, but I have no evidence of this. Daibhid C 19:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: An unsourced comment was added to Buxton
 Lisa Drabble whom inspired Monty Python to create    
 'The Drabble' - an extremely short work of fiction   
 with exactly 100 words.
by User:Drabbinski. Any evidence for that Billlion 21:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Source of word "drabble"

message: I was taught (and this is 30 odd years ago, mind) that a drabble was a short story of exactly 100 words, no more, no less. I talked to my father about this and he was taught the exact same thing during the 1950s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.22.113.222 (talk) 11:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Less than a 1,000 words?

message: Seems to me 'Drabble' is a hoax post.  I've been reading about fiction for years and have never
heard this term before.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.120.202 (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the term is widely used at least in the context of fanfiction.217.141.200.62 (talk) 09:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. To 71.233.120.202: You've been reading fiction, not fanfiction. The term "drabble" is almost ubiquitous within online fanfiction communities. —Lowellian (reply) 01:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Hoax

message: Is it a bad program or a careless human that marks articles with bibliographies but no footnotes as having no citations? GeorgeTSLC (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: No Cites? Nonsense!

message: At the moment the article is proposed for deletion. The word drabble is, due to ambiguity, unsearchable in the search engines as an idependet concept. However, "drabble fan fiction" gains 3,6 million Google hits and "drabble science fiction" earns 1,6 million hits. The article itself has references which establish the notability of this type of fiction, although more would always be better. I see no reason to delete the article. --Chino (talk) 12:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletion
Talk:Oxford Classical Dictionary

message: Somebody must write a biographical article about Max Cary (181-1958), editor of the 1st ed. He was born with the curiouly german name Maximilian Otto Bismarck Caspari, but I don't know anything about his familiy background. Early on his life he published a selection of Grote's History of Greece, with some additional matter. He was Reader of Ancient History in University College, London (or was King's College, London, I don't know) from 1908 to 1946. He anglicized his name to Max Cary during the First World War. He wrote many chapters to the Cambridge Ancient History (1st ed., 1923-39) and edited the Methuen's History of Greek and Roman World (circa 1932-1938, the first volume published was his own A History of the Greek Word from 323 to 146 B.C, other volumes contributed by historians like H. H. Scullard, E. T. Salmon, etc)   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.207.213.212 (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

message: I erased the claim that there was a Third edition published in 2002. The Third Edition is actually from 1996, and according to this site, at least as of 2003, the '96 edition was still the current edition: . Decius 04:49, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The confusion may have arisen because there is a "revised 3rd edition" from 2003 (I just bought one a month ago). Stan 13:49, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: Made an edit to a sentence. Authoritative does not equal: unimpeccable, or unquestionable, etc. See  ("highly reliable" is as good as the definition gets). Authoritative means it can be used as a credible & credited reference presenting a view that is maintained at least by some scholars; it does not mean that OCD always presents the sole scholarly view or even the consensus (=majority opinion) scholarly view. See for example the 1996 edition's inclusion of Olivier Masson's view on the Ancient Macedonian language, where Masson states that it should tentatively be viewed as a Greek dialect. This is not the consensus view by any means. There are other examples. Decius 07:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authoritative 

message: What value is it to have external links to the "catalog" pages on the publisher's & Amazon websites? Beyond making it easier for a given person to buy a copy, that is? -- llywrch (talk) 15:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question
Talk:British Forces Rangers

message: Is there a relationship with this article to a Ministry of Defence announcement  regarding the 'Special Reconnaissance Regiment (SRR)?' Clue 04:54, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The  SRR is a different unit, specialising in covert surveillance. It is part of the  special forces group, and presumably thus subject to the same conditions of secrecy and anonymity as the  SAS and  SBS, while the new 'Rangers' would appear to be a more conventional unit. — Franey 12:31, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for clarifying. Despite the differences in terms / purpose I was thinking there was a slight possibility that they were one and the same. Clue 03:14, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Special Reconnaissance Regiment

message: If the Telegraph story is confirmed, this page should be moved to Joint Special Forces Support Group. — Franey 14:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems the title has been mentioned in Hansard  in answer to 'Defence Reductions.' Clue 06:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's now officially confirmed on  the MoD's site for 16 Brigade: 1 PARA will leave 16 Brigade in 2006 when they take up their new role as the Joint Special Forces Support Group, based at St Athan in South Wales. I'll update the article, which should be moved to Joint Special Forces Support Group (with the "Rangers" page as a redirect): anyone know how? — Franey 11:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably 'Changing a redirect' to edit JSFSG and move the article there. British Forces Rangers should be made a redirect if still relevant, although I do not think it is. Clue 21:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: No. They are different units. SRR = 14 Intelligence Company, JSFSG/"Rangers" = 1 Bn Parachute Regiment. See above, and Talk:Special Reconnaissance Regiment. — Franey 14:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joint Special Forces Support Group
Talk:The Dark Tower (series)

message: I tried to play the Discordia online game. First I was able to register and watched the introduction. Later I tried to log on again, and that was not possible. A query to the webmaster at stephenking.com resulted in this reply:
"Discordia account creation and login are not currently working. The game is currently being rewritten for the modern web, and a new version should be out in the next month or so."
Is that worth noting in the tiny section about Discordia? And if so how - a private email is not exactly a good source. RenniePet (talk) 04:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Find a reliable source that's mentioned it? DonIago (talk) 21:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discordia game currently not usable 

message: The introduction states: "A film based on The Gunslinger and also serving as a sequel to the events of The Dark Tower VII: The Dark Tower due to the nature of said book's ending was released in August 2017." However, there is no evidence in the link provided or in the movie itself that it is a sequel for the novels. Has anybody seen this stated anywhere or is it just bogus?
77.254.100.234 (talk) 23:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Here you go. DonIago (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film adaptation mention in the introduction seems mistaken 

message: Below information had been tagged for needing sourcing since 2018. Feel free to reinsert with appropriate references. DonIago (talk) 18:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced information 

message: Setting 197.229.142.111 (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  English
Category talk:Genetically modified organisms

message: Would this list include mutants like the X-Men? ;) MicahMN | Talk 05:17, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fiction about mutants is abundant. That is half the reason why it is a strong word. In short, the answer is no. Facts are in fiction. Fiction is in facts. Hopefully, not on wikipedia. Hopefully, anybody determined to ignore fiction and learn facts on wikipedia won't hav any trouble. 68.148.103.90 (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't the discussion on GMO vs Mutant belong on the article discussion page, and not in the category itself?  I would think this is rather unhelpful. Settlet (talk) 23:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see the "not in the category itself" point. It can go into both. Nothing is wrong with having it here. No reason is why the category can't be more advanced than the article. 68.148.103.90 (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving Genetically Modified Organism to Artificial Mutant
Talk:Øystein Sunde

message: There is no evidence supporting the claim that Sunde has received public praise from either Knopfler, Clapton or any other top, international guitar player for that matter.  It is a myth and most likely untrue.  The myth should perhaps be presented in the article, but certainly not in the introduction. This information should either be moved or deleted 129.241.169.50 (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree, and it looks like this has been sorted. ~Fenrisulfr (talk · work)</font> 09:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled