lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Turki bin Said

message: (Turkis Bint Turki Al-Said was married to her cousin Harub bin Thuwaini Al-Said and had issue Sultan Sayyid Khalifa bin Harub Al-Said of Zanzibar )  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masalsaid (talk • contribs) 05:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  

message: Sayyid and Sayyida are the correct official titles for the Omani royalties. They are the equivalents of prince/princess, duke/duchess, etc. The down link bellow redirects to the page of the council of minister in Oman on the official website of the Omani news agency (ONA). You can obviously view that the deputy prime minister (who's a member of the royal family) is entitled (H.H Sayyid Fahd bin Mahmoud al-Said). The same thing is indicated with the next two individuals from the council and the fifth and sixth as well.
http://omannews.gov.om/en/web/ona/the-council-of-minister
This royal ark's link is also used as reference on the article itself. It demonstrates the titles as Sayyid and Sayyida
http://www.royalark.net/Oman/oman7.htm  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.98.114.159 (talk) 07:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sayyid/Sayyida not Sheikh/Sheikha!
Talk:Lazy Gun

message: The text was more or less a verbatim plagiarism of the site i added as an external link. I think it is probably ok to publish it here, and I have tried to paraphrase it a bit. It could do with some more info still. Guinnog 22:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The site was a copy of our article Against a Dark Background in one of it's previous incarnations. I'm referenceing that instead... Rich   Farmbrough. 00:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this is getting circular. It is all a precis of the book itself, a better reference i thinkGuinnog 00:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but GFDL requires us to <thing> the authors. (fill in the blank - I'm tired!) Rich   Farmbrough. 00:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Source
Talk:Roberts-class monitor

message: There were two monitors called HMS Abercrombie one was of the first World War period and the other of the second. This site (uboat.net) calls the class to which the latter belonged the Roberts class but Janes Fighting Ships (1953-54) calls it the Abercrombie class.
These two pages agree with the web site above but that is not surprising as they are from the same site:
*HMS Roberts
*HMS Abercrombie
Are we sure that Janes is wrong and the uboat.net site is right?
(RJP 22:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I am becoming confused.
Talk:Indiana's congressional districts

message: If there are no plan on creating these articles, the links should be deleted.  All they do is redirect back to this article.  -- JTHolla! 22:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For some reason somebody redirected them all here. I fixed it, thanks for letting me know they were redirects. HoosierStateTalk 22:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done! -- JTHolla! 22:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Main Article...''' 
Talk:8th (The King's) Regiment of Foot

message: This picture from the Cloathing book of 1742 is a depiction of a soldier of colonel Read's Regiment numbered 8th Regt of Foot in the Book but since 1750's it was known as 9th Foot.
The King's Regiment (=Colonel Onslow's Regiment in 1742) was numbered 9th Regt of Foot in the Book, but later it became 8th Foot. It had blue facings being one of the Royal Regiments of the British Army.
So correct picture of 8th Regt is here http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/dgkeysearchdetail.cfm?trg=1&strucID=293335&imageID=477275&total=111&num=20&parent_id=293136&word=&s=¬word=&d=&c=&f=&k=0&sScope=&sLevel=&sLabel=&lword=&lfield=&imgs=20&pos=29&snum=&e=w
Alexander Shatulin (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong picture (A contemporary illustration of a soldier of the King's Regiment, dated 1742.)
Talk:63rd (West Suffolk) Regiment of Foot

message: I removed the following from the start of the history section, as it conflicts with the information in the 7 Years War section. That information is available on the Museum of the Manchester Regiment website. If anyone has a cite for this sentence, feel free to put it back.
"Formed in 1744 as the 63rd (American) Regiment of Foot, they became the 63rd (West Suffolk) Regiment of Foot in 1758."
87.210.0.196 (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: History
Talk:King's Regiment

message: Did the HQ Kings serve in Operation Iraqi Freedom?
User:Jetwave Dave 13/06/07, 22:39PM
... and did they have an HQ in Star Chamber Cave in 1941? Victuallers (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: HQ Kings TA
Category talk:United States Army posts

message: While I've deleted some obvious miscategorizations from this list, there remains a problem of no definition for the category. "Post" commonly refers to a fort or camp (which have formal establishment) and not areas such as military housing areas, FOBs (Forward Operating Bases), and more temporary encampments. Sooner or later I will/might define and limit what goes into this category, but input from other editors is certainly hoped for.  Thanks. --S. Rich (talk) 06:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Post" needs definition
Talk:47th (Lancashire) Regiment of Foot

message: Are you 100% sure about the arrival of the regiment in Malta in 1853?
A personal inventory, left by dr. Henry Mostyn, Esq, surgeon of the 47th dated 30th of March 1849 has him residing in Malta at the time.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.255.254 (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Malta

message: I have completed the B class checklist and feel that the article is still a Start class article. I believe that it could be improved by adding in-line citations (at least one per paragraph for a successful B class review) and a number of sources into the references section at the bottom of the page. Additionally, See also and External links sections would provide readers with more resources. An image/reproduction etc. would also serve to illustrate the article, although it might be difficult to find given the time period that this regiment existed. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvements
Talk:5th Royal Inniskilling Dragoon Guards

message: I'm pretty sure that the Unit was stationed 1970 in Münster, Germany not Munster, Republic of Ireland.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DA:6BC0:4128:D5F2:6779:8533:8ADA (talk) 12:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: corrected. Dormskirk (talk) 20:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Münster not Munster

message: My Grandmothers Cousin was in the 5th Inniskilling Dragoon Guards and was killed on the 26/09/1944 (Trooper Albert Thickpenny) does anyone know of any battles that took place on that day or is there anywhere where I can find out details of movement during that date? I am trying to research into his Life while part of the guards and have hit a brick wall on information.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.205.92 (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calling any Military Historians 

message: On behalf of my family im searching for a thomas john rodgers.
also known by jacky.
he married and had a son but the baby was only days old when he left
and no-one has heard from him since.
he was in this regiment any where from 1960+
his yr of birth 1943, mth aug.
If any one knows of him are his wear bouts i would very
much apeciate a responce
                               L.A.Rodgers  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.221.29.246 (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  searching 

message: Added the 1989-90 tour of Northern Ireland. I know it happened because I was in it! I'll try to find a published reference and add that as soon as I can.
Radj397 (talk) 22:29, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Tour
Talk:51st Highland Volunteers

message: The companies were not made up as listed from 1999-2006, this list is correct from 2006 on.
Before this:
HQ COY - Perth
A (Black Watch): Dundee/Kirkcaldy
B (Highlanders): Aberdeen/Peterhead/Keith/Lerwick
C (Highlanders): Inverness/Stornoway/Wick/Kirkwall
D (Argylls): Dumbarton/Dunoon
E (Argylls): Stirling/Cumbernauld
In addition, the Lerwick platoon is no longer part of this regiment; they have been re-badged Royal Artillery  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.25.123 (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 1999 onwards information not accurate
Talk:6th Queen Elizabeth's Own Gurkha Rifles

message: As far as I can tell the links to the Rothwell (order of battle for North Africa) page do not provide citations for the information in the article. I could not find this information when I clicked on them. I will not remove them at this time - but if others agree, I think they should be. Other sources will need to be found for this information. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've managed to replace one of these citations with a book, but one still remains. — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Links to Rothwell page

message: I believe that this article could be improved in the following ways:
* expanding the text to describe the unit's history in more detail (particular in the First and Second World Wars);
* adding in more citations, as there are still a few statements that require citations;
* adding some images — the regimental badge would look nice in the infobox, as would a few images/photographs to break up the text.
Is there anyone that is able to help with this? I have added what I can, but to be honest do not have the sources to expand the text further. — AustralianRupert (talk) 03:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Can anyone help with adding more info to the infobox? For example: motto, marches, mascot, colonel of the regiment, etc. I'd say that Queen Elizabeth might have been the colonel of the regiment, but don't have anything to back this up. Does anyone know for sure? — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for help improving article
Talk:Amagon

message: I don't know much, or anything really, about the game. There is an imagine of the box that it comes in here: http://www.consolegameworld.com/game.php/id/13816/. I'd do it myself but I don't really know how.--Jpawloski 23:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was also trashed here at Something Awful. --DocumentN (talk) 06:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

message: but i don't speak english 
it's a pretty difficult game, so a no so good player will be in problem even trying to pass the first area,but is this game have something that may encourage you for playing it is the challenge
music : awnful
graphics : not excellents but not bad either (for the time it was published)
PD: remenber i don't speak english
may be i expand a little in the spanish wiki  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.158.178.58 (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  i play this game
Talk:9th/12th Royal Lancers

message: Is is possible to include the capbadge in the article?
I don't see why it couldn't. Unless there are any specific requests for it not to be shown, or copyright issues that may restrict the use. DeadDeers (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capbadge 
Talk:9th Queen's Royal Lancers

message: I moved this quote from the Boer War section to here, as my goal is to remove as many "citequote" tags as possible. This is the quote that needs a successful citation:
* He said, "I know they have always been a splendid Regiment".
I would be grateful if anyone else can help me out. Minimac94 (talk) 20:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote needs citing
Talk:Atholl Highlanders

message: The Atholl Highlanders were in existence during WW2, yet saw no action. Was membership of the regiment sufficient for people to avoid conscription into the 'regular army'? 161.73.37.81 19:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The regiment has been a purely ceremonial one since its formation in 1839 (although its structure may have been used as a basis for the local Home Guard, but that is speculation on my part). Unless members of the regiment during the Second World War were in reserved occupations, or had a medical reason for not being on active service, then they would have been called up. Hammersfan 07/05/07, 15.44 BST
Atholl Highlanders? Are you kidding? Say it out loud, I'm convinced this is all an elaborate hoax.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.33.50 (talk) 20:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Conscription

message: Anyone have any information on these? Conspicuous by their absence in an article on a military unit. If they are unarmed, as might be expected of a purely ceremonial private force, this is notable, and an explanation of how this would fit with guard duties would certainly be in order. If they are equipped and trained then this information should be given. Leushenko (talk) 12:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Training and armament 

message: Photos in the uniform would be welcome.
Olegwiki (talk) 14:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos

message: this article describes them as bodyguards, but also as ceremonial. Does that mean they are only ceremonial bodyguards, or are they actually an effective combat force? 67.176.160.47 (talk) 05:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The regiment is a personal bodyguard in much the same way as the Sovereign's Bodyguard is - while in the past they will have undertaken actually guarding duties, as indicated when they provided guards during Queen Victoria's visits, today they are purely for ceremonial Hammersfan (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  bodyguards 
Talk:Blues and Royals

message: I have moved the article back to the common title of the regiment, as per Wikipedia policy. Everyone calls the regiment the "Blues and Royals", so that's what the article should be called. -- Necrothesp 15:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming

message: I removed the :Category:Positions within the British Royal Household because the regiment is not part of the Royal Household.  The rest of the category is about offices in the household, now largely ones with a function (or ceremonial fucntion), but formerly including many sinecures.  The regiment is not part of the royal household, though it incorporates a household regiment, whose notional fucntion was formerly to guard the royal household.  Before I remove the category again, I would like to hear an explanation of why others think the category is appropriate.   Peterkingiron (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal Household 
Talk:Cheshire Regiment

message: Is the deployment shown of 1/7 Bn to France in 1914 correct? My understanding is that 1/4 and 1/7 were combined as 4/7 Bn and deployed to Gallipoli. 2A00:23C4:92A5:8601:52E:BD4C:E3DC:62EF (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  1/7 Bn deployment  1914
Talk:Coldstream Guards

message: A large chunk of unwikified and, for the most part, unsourced material has been added to the article with the edit summary "update to the entire page from RHQ Coldstream Guards". If this is the case there has been conflict of interest editing here. Dormskirk (talk) 09:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The status of the editor should not be confused with the sources of the material. As regards the former, I have seen some regimental media officers insert material which uses peacock language, ignores events that have tarnished the reputation of the regiment and generally seeks to present recruiting material. Examples of peacock language would include "The Regiment has a long and distinguished history" and "...distinguishing itself on numerous occasions". As regards the sources of the material, it was unwikified and, for the most part, unsourced and therefore did not comply with WP:V, WP:CITE and WP:RS. So it was impossible to assess whether the sources were trustworthy. Also if the writer was accessing records which "many would not have normally have access to", that material is likely to be ineligible because WP:RS requires that we use published secondary sources not primary sources. Dormskirk (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict of interest editing 

message: The ColdShave Guards are to be called the oldest regiment in the British Army under of course The Astonishing 1642 regiment known as the “Jock Guards”( Scots Guards ) 92.4.58.225 (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oldest Regiment 

message: The soldiers did not cross the Coldstream to restore the monarchy but actually to restore the Rump Parliament- the very body that had ordered Charles the First’s execution and then instituted the republic. When they got to London Monck quickly came to favour monarchical restoration but that was not the regiment’s motivation on marching South. 2A02:C7C:362A:E200:A823:DCE2:3959:EC6B (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crossing the Coldstream
Talk:Dictionary coder

message: Isn't what's described as LZ78 here actually LZW? --80.108.210.185 23:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At least the part about LZ78 "at the beginning of the encoding process, the dictionary only needs to contain entries for the symbols of the alphabet". LZ78 doesn't do this, the dictionary starts off empty, and even raw symbols get added to the dictionary. LZW stores or emulates storing of the symbols in the dictionary. Rcgldr (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the LZ78 description, added a LZW description, and deleted the LZW example, since LZW already has an example. Rcgldr (talk) 00:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Methods and applications
Talk:Stuart v. Laird

message: The article currently says "Stuart won on both accounts, and a dangerous show-down between the legislative and the judicial branches of the United States' government was averted."  In fact Stuart lost on both accounts.  If Stuart had prevailed (i.e., if the court had struck down the 1802 repeal of the 1801 Judiciary Act), that would have triggered the "dangerous show-down" that the article (correctly) says was averted.  My reference is http://www.michaelariens.com/ConLaw/cases/stuart.htm, which is already cited in the article, as well as other law references on the web (just Google "Stuart v. Laird").  I believe the entry as now written must simply be a typo.  As this is my first contribution to Wikipedia, I am going to wait a few days for responses to this comment before I make the edit.  Logician1989 23:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:De re militari

message: In the article it states that Vegetius was probably under patronage of Theodosius, but the prefaces of the books in the English translation are addressed towards Valentinian, more than likely Valentinian II, who co-ruled with Theodosius. Is there any further evidence to suggest his patron?--2ltben 23:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Vegetius, where I have added some material on this point. -- llywrch 19:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I have added a reference there and expanded the section a little, to make the two manuscript traditions clearer, I hope. This present article exists to please disinfoboxmakers: Vegetius and his manuscript can't usefully be separated. --Wetman 20:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Patronage

message: The Art of War was written by Sun-tzu, not Machiavelli.
71.77.144.114 (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep the comment re Sun Tzu is ignorant beyond belief.... Tentsmuir (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Art of War 

message: I've found at least a couple of broken links on this page. I've looked up the subject in the editor guidelines but can find no general guidelines on what to do with those links, so I've fixed them where I can and removed the following, which I can find no replacement link for:
* 
If anyone can give me advice on guidelines for broken links, it would be much appreciated.
Cadar (talk) 12:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken links?
Talk:McLean station

message: The redirect McLean (WMATA station has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 04:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:McLean (WMATA station]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Spring Hill station

message: There are photographs available (Creative Commons Attribution, Noncommercial, No Derivative Works) of the construction of the station.  http://www.flickr.com/photos/mdmarkus66/6208528480/ and http://www.flickr.com/photos/mdmarkus66/6208528704/ . Mdmarkus66 (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The noncommercial and no derivatives part is what screws us up.  As far as CC licenses go, we can only use Attribution or Attribution-ShareAlike and still be compatible with WP and Commons.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Photographs of construction
Talk:Wiehle–Reston East station

message: How about a map or a picture? It'd help the article! Where is it going to be? The Reston Station. Where's that? In Reston.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.22.247.113 (talk) 16:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  A picture is worth a thousand words 

message: How is it that there is a preceding and following station listed? The train will function in both directions. --74.96.51.3 (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preceding and Following Stations?  
Talk:Jessie White Mario

message: This article meets no standards of wikipedia.  It needs an extreme redo, and looks to be copied from another source.
:Comment: Jessie was my gr gr aunt. This article was very helpful to me.  Sofar everything checks out.  Is worth keeping.Thanks
::I find the article well done in august 2010, after improvements. I have changed some images.--Everyreason1 (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments
Talk:Cookie dough

message: The current article is nothing but a dictionary definition.  Needs expanding.  Normally I try to delete such articles, but cookie dough seems worthy of an article.  I mean, it's damn tasty even uncooked.  --Xyzzyplugh 14:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Source? kaiti-sicle 03:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The vast majority of cookie dough consumed in raw form is the dough of Toll House cookies.

message: Cookie dough is cooked, consumed in raw form, is sold by huge companies like Pillsbury Company, David's Cookies and Otis Spunkmeyer. It's also a huge selling item for fundraising events and is a major ingredient in Ben & Jerry's and other ice cream products. It's certainly deserving of its own category. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blogyman (talk • contribs) 22:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  definitely needs expanding 

message: Note that in cooking sugar is considered a wet ingredient.
Of course that's counter-intuitive, and unbalances the columns... --Belg4mit (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wet/Dry 

message: I have just proposed merging cookie dough bites into this article. If nobody wants to merge cookie dough bites into this article, then I'll send cookie dough bites to AfD. If nobody says anything, I'll go ahead and merge. I dream of horses (T) @  15:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge sounds good to me! Fences&Windows 16:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

text: No objection from me --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I do object -- your "article" seems to be nothing but free advertising for a commercial product.  There are plenty of other products out there which use cookie dough, why should yours be treated specially?  (If there *is* a reason, it's certainly not stated in the article....)  Critterkeeper (talk) 08:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal