lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Special forces of India

message: i have modified it in several places and have repeatedly said that the type 56 is not in use with the armed forces of India on any level what so ever.
this is excluding the units captured at the hands of militants, or when caches are destroyed or uncovered.
please remove the type 56 rifle from this selection  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.171.168.66 (talk) 05:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  type 56 use 

message: There are currently only 4 verifiable special forces units in India. The Central Armed Police Forces include most of the units that were previously listed such the NSG and SPG.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.64.154.72 (talk) 11:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates 

message: A new article for AFSOD is deserved. I hurriedly documented AFSOD here. I can’t create an article (time constraints), although I can definitely augment and expand it if somebody creates it. See Defence Cyber Agency for hints.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaibhavafro (talk • contribs) 14:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: — Vaibhavafro 💬 10:42, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Article for Armed Forces Special Operations Division 
Talk:Sustainable competitive advantage

message: An SCA is something that you get as a result of offfering more value to a customer than does the competition.  It is an advantage (over the competition), and must have some life; the competition must not be able to do it right away or it is not sustainable.  First we figure out what the targeted customer values, and then we figure out how to provide it.  Core competencies are things that we do well that provide SCAs.  If we determine that a specific SCA will be important for success, then we invest money in enhancing or buying that ability (competency).  Competencies deliver SCAs, but are not them.
Steve Edison
:You make a very good point in your last sentence. I made an adjustment to the second sentence of the article to reflect your point. mydogategodshat 05:37, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Dell uses two strategies to obtain competitive advantage: electronic order taking, and modular product customization. mydogategodshat 17:33, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

message: Is the unfair advantage just a synonym or is it a special type of competive advantage linked to entrepreneurship and growth?
the definition given by John Nesheim is based on value to customer:
"Unfair Advantage is a unique, consistent difference in product attributes and services arising from a company capability gap based on delivering superior value over longer period of time to the customer?"
It is clearly 1.Unique 2.Valuable and consitant 3.Inimitable for a long period of time
So Unfair Advantage is a competitive advantage. But is competitive advantage an unfair advantage?
Nesheim descibe the concept as:
1. Unique to one company
2. Hard to duplicate
3. Differentiated
4. Relative, especially to the competition (New enterprises always have competition)
5. It is scarce.
6. A company capability gap comes from the people who together make up the company.
7. It delivers superior value (what the custumer percieve as valuable)
8. It survives over time
9. It can be grown.
10. It is expandable.
11. It is dynamic.
12. It appeals to lots of different customers.
RE:
I am not sure. but unfair advantage <TM> means protecting your product from imitation or cheap copying. Where competitive advantage's sources lies in Differiantion or Cost.
~ 
It seems unfair advantage is the name of a consulting company that was bought by Southwestern/Great American Inc last year. It was also a trademark in the field of business consulting until the takeover according to USPTO. And there is no trademark alive in that field (there are computer programs, t-shirt caps and clothing, drilling equipment...).
--Lindigo 12:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unfair Advantage

message: Is competitive advantage aplicable to nation states as well? This would turn quite interesting in terms of regulatory competition between markets. I have some confusing ideas. If some one have a clearer understanding of this issue s/he can try to have a go.
Thanx (canciand1 11:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Competitive Advantage among nation states
Talk:Impeachment

message: The word punishment occurs in the reference text, thereby causing @Novum Linguae to remove text indicating that it is not.
I agree a cursory review seems to create a contradiction; however the intent was clearly stated on Page 8, exactly as my entry stated. It is a remedy with no intent to runish the individual.
I suggest relying on the intent of the process for the article rather than an incidental consequence mentioned cursorily. The exact quote from page 8 of the citation is below:
The text which was presumed to be misquouted is below:
:Most developed countries involve the courts in some way, but in the United States impeachment is a remedy to correct the office rather than a punishment of the officer or official. This arrangement places it outside the legal system and the impeached official is given no due process of law as the official can suffer no civil injury from the process.
I can add more sources if needed, but the current paragraph is contradictory and grammatically weird. Maybe a slight rewording would be better than block deleting references?
--Frobozz1 (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , you are right. I went ahead and re-added the text. I apologize for my revert. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit made from incorrect context - Impeachment USA is not intended as punishment. Opening is now contradictory. 

message: Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body or other legally constituted tribunal initiates charges against a public official for misconduct.[1][2] It may be understood as a unique process involving both political and legal elements. 49.244.131.150 (talk) 01:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impeachment
Talk:Fundamental analysis

message: I think it would be useful to create a page describing stock screeners - i.e. their purpose and use, together with a list of the more popular ones out there. Does anyone know enough about this topic to get it started? Ronnotel 12:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Screening tools

message: I find it a bit curious that technical analysis is included in such a substantial way in the article on "fundamental analysis."  Perhaps that was not the intention, but the way the article is worded, it almost appears as though technical analysis is a variety of fundamental analysis.  Obviously, this is not the case.  Any thoughts on improving this, so that it is more apparent that the two are very distinct from one another?
Jhain301 16:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inclusion of Technical Analysis as Such?

message: I would be interested in hearing opinions of Wikipedia users about usefulness of adding this external link to the article: iStockResearch.
Using fundamental analysis, iStoskResearch provides intrinsic (or fair) value calculations to most actively-traded US and Canadian stocks. Personally, I find it very useful. The model is also highly praised by Value Investing For Dummies and by High-Powered Investing All-In-One For Dummies.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.122.208.187 (talk) 06:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It shouldn't be there per WP:ELNO points 2, 4, 5, and 11. - MrOllie (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding an external link 

message: Most of the sections seem to be relatively clear and on-topic. However, the Procedures section needs some cleanup in a few main areas:
#Some ideas seem slightly off-topic (though it could be that they just need a bit more introduction). For example, the sentence beginning "The earnings estimates and growth rate projections published widely..." does not follow very smoothly from the ones proceeding it. Perhaps a lead in could be a list of key fundamental analysts.
#The descriptions of the actual procedures are a bit unclear. It is especially unclear whether these procedures apply only to fundamental analysis. If anyone has the technical knowledge to explain it in layman's terms...
#The 'new career' mentioned is not described at all.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2ReinreB2 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Procedures' Section Cleanup 

message: I do think there is a need to give a bit of history in the article. Who are the main researchers and scientists that build the 'fundament' of the fundamental analysis? What are the main milestones in the development of FA?
Klomb (talk) 07:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research and theory 

message: How do you think: if a stock is sold at a fair price, does it deserve to be bought? If not, then what is the fairness of this "fair" price? What's the point to calling it so?Clothclub (talk) 00:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  About fairness of "fair" price
Talk:Hot air balloon

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover)  Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hot-air balloon →  – Looking through the sources and external links here and Google, Google News, and Google Books results, a significant majority spell this without the hyphen. This includes the FAA, AP, LA Times, and others. I recognize that there are also sources that use the hyphen, but it seems without is the WP:COMMONNAME. The title of this page is inconsistent with pretty much all related pages, including Hot air ballooning, List of hot air balloon festivals, and 2016 Lockhart hot air balloon crash, etc., so if this isn't moved, they should be moved instead to match this article. Reywas92Talk 03:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: "To link related terms in compound modifiers". In this case, "hot-air" is a compound modifier. This article is not about an air balloon that has a high temperature. It's a balloon filled with hot air. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 30 December 2021 

message: Bartolomeu de Gusmão is born in Brazil and did most of his baloon work in Brazil. He is known as a historic figure of Brazil, and it seems quite eurocentric (and even racist) to treat him as Portuguese without any mention to Brazil.
I was planning add it directly (because it is anyway the way his own Wikipedia article describes him), but the article is protected... so I am adding this here in the talk. 2A02:8071:B82:6760:A5FB:F8E4:DD92:7D56 (talk) 11:48, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add "Brazilian-born" before "Portuguese priest" when referring to Gusmão 

message: — Assignment last updated by ElizaJane11 (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: History of Science

message: It says 376 liters is 20 gallons, but it's 10 gallons.  3.785 L = 1 gallon. 2603:6082:2800:61:B132:1DAE:4014:B855 (talk) 13:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallons wrong under Combined Mass section
Talk:Hymen

message: I highly recommend deleting this line  "or it may instead be completely absent" from the first paragraph of the article, since there is no scientific evidence to prove complete absence of hymen.
"it may instead be completely absent" I checked it's reference and found no evidence about absence of the hymen.
anybody can provide a reference with certain that congenital hymen absence is scientifically proved.
in this research page 1, right column, first 3 lines declare that, in their research they have not seen any hymen absence, while i am not aware of any other research that have found congenital absent hymen, i am very thankful if anybody can help me.
Daniel abdullah (talk) 13:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absent hymen 
Talk:Henry I, Duke of Brabant

message: Henri II, Duke of Brabant was born in 1207, from Henri I's first marriage, rather than by his marriage to Marie de France, which occurred in 1213.  An online source for this would be here. -- Someone else 00:07, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The 1197 expedition was not part of the Third Crusade.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.108.70.239 (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed Third Crusade to Crusade of Henry VI of Germany
Talk:Smart Personal Objects Technology

message: This was revolting spam, so I over-neutralized it, as a penalty for spam.  I suggest every attempt to restore the promotional spam result in us tolerating one more harsh criticism with a really nasty link and insulting sentence, until they get the message that they can't spam here.
Also, link to every competing product you can find, but don't link the competing products to this.  That will give more attention to products whose vendors do not spam.
:I'd like to know your definition of spam.  It doesn't seem to apply here.  RickK 02:15, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: * I very much agree with user RickK.  I myself have just attempted to clean up the article but it would be best if moderators could review it to decide whether the advert tags should still remain. ¤~Persian Poet Gal 23:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: SPAM

message: When did Melitta come out with the SPOT coffee maker?  The article merely says 'recently'. RJFJR (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Melitta Coffee Maker

message: Molemo 105.245.124.144 (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technology spot on
Talk:Internet Architecture Board

message: Moved from initials because related bodies:
* Internet Engineering Task Force
* Internet Engineering Steering Group
* Internet Society
are all listed under their full names; also allows us to turn the initials page into a disambiguator if needed. Noel 02:13, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initials page 

message: "IESG Confirmation: The IAB confirms the IETF Chair and IESG Area Directors, from nominations provided by the IETF Nominating Committee."
What does this mean? What does it mean, that the IAB "confirms" the IETF Chair?—Preceding unsigned comment added by LionKimbro (talk • contribs) 
: Exactly what it says. The IETF Chair is selected by the Nominations Committee, (along with the IESG members). and the IAB approves that person. They can't pick someone else, all they can do is say "yes" or "no". I don't recall any case where the IAB has ever said "no" to any name, though. It's more of a safety check than anything else. Noel 14:10, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  IESG Confirmation 

message: This page: http://www.iab.org/about/history.html
Says there are only two task forces left. Is it still true? If yes, the page should be updated.
"""The IAB (then Internet Activities Board, now Internet Architecture Board), which until that time oversaw many "task forces," changed its structure to leave only two: the IETF and the IRTF. """ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Konryd (talk • contribs) 
:The degree to which the IAB "oversees" the IETF is a matter for debate; most people in the IETF community seem to be happy to say what the responsibilities of the IAB are, and leave it at that. Long history... --Alvestrand (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Should then the sentence "It oversees a number of Task Forces, of which the most important are the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)." get changed? Konryd (talk) 17:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Task forces 

message: ICCB redirects here but it can not be found in the text. Guidod (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *  - At some point in the past someone added info about the ICCB to the History section. I also explicitly added the abbreviation next to the spelled-out name. - Dyork (talk) 09:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  ICCB 

message: Daveburstein (talk) 00:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  IAB about page
Talk:Internet Research Task Force

message: Moved from initials because related bodies:
* Internet Engineering Task Force
* Internet Engineering Steering Group
* Internet Society
are all listed under their full names; also allows us to turn the initials page into a disambiguator if needed. Noel 02:15, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Initials

message: I tried to look for sources for the steering group independent of the task force, but I wasn’t able to find any secondary sources for it that weren’t also about the IRTF itself. I think it might make more sense for the Steering Group to be a section under the IRTF article rather than on remain its own. Silvester (talk) 23:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Klbrain (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Internet Research Steering Group]] into [[Internet Research Task Force]]
Talk:List of films considered the best

message: Any idea why there is no mention of the AFI lists? Generally it's regarded as one of the better lists of top films: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFI%27s_100_Years...100_Movies  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whubbard (talk • contribs) 09:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The American Film Institute only considers films from the US. TompaDompa (talk) 11:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a moot point anyway, because those polls are included in the United States section. Betty Logan (talk) 11:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFI List 

message: Genuinely wondering why we need so much space dedicated to some of the least populous areas of the globe Alena 33 (talk) 09:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would we make this list like some other random article? As for you second point, Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER. Betty Logan (talk) 10:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: If anything, List of books considered the best and List of video games considered the best should be more like this list in terms of WP:LISTCRITERIA and so on. TompaDompa (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Is say it should be similar for the sake of consistency. 2600:1006:B027:2F3F:B1D1:5F29:FBB4:7B11 (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Will this ever be more like the book and video game lists? 

message: NEWS SIDEBAR:  `The 50 Greatest Jewish Movies’ Espngeek (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Jewish movies are not a recognised genre (although Israel exists, none of them seem Israeli produced). In any case, it is not clear how the list was formulated i.e. is it a proper polled survey or a magazine editorial? Betty Logan (talk) 12:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this count?
Talk:War profiteering

message: The claim that "This decision was made as a direct result of the influence of Lockheed Martin" is an extremely bold assertion, and requires some explanation.  The article linked is an editorial piece that even sarcastically suggests that the decisions were "surely a coincidence," not citing any conclusive evidence or investigatory report that they weren't.  Selling legislation is a high crime, one which has marked the end of political careers for people such as Maryland Delegate Cheryl Glenn; the current language states definitively that Thornberry is guilty of this crime. John Moser (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious
Talk:Smoked salmon

message: I've marked it as needing globalizing as it seems entirely focused on British Columbia, I also question whether the process described is even for smoked salmon, or just a general overview of canned salmon, as it doesn't seem to mention actually smoking the fish at any point. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The section seems to me to be entirely about the canning of fresh-caught salmon. Nothing is said about smoking. Unless someone can make a change to ensure it is more relevant to the article, I propose to delete this section. Sbishop (talk) 14:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  canning section
Talk:Special Romanian Unicode characters

message: Oddly, on my system (Firebird 0.6.1, Linux, some mismash of fonts), the "wrong" and "right" versions for the s do differ, but for the t both show up as "t with comma below" -- neither is "t with cedilla." --Delirium 07:30, Aug 26, 2003 (UTC)
: Never mind, I had misread the first time, and this is mentioned in the text. --Delirium 07:50, Aug 26, 2003 (UTC)
----
It's probably easiest if the general discussion on cedilla versus comma happened in one place, and I've started by arguing for it on Talk:Romanian Alphabet.
However, I also deleted a comment about 1860. It left me wondering why 1860; the date seemed very devoid of context. After looking around to Romanian language, I discovered that was the year of the first official standardization of Romanian. Which leaves me with two questions: were s/t with cedilla/comma even used before then, and which forms did they show? Perhaps backed up with explanations, it could be useful, but alone it's more confusing than explanitory. --Prosfilaes 06:26, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I suggest to merge Special Romanian Unicode characters into Romanian alphabet because both articles discuss about the history of S-comma and T-comma, and that the character encoding problem is also mentioned in Romanian alphabet article. --Hello World! 16:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest merging
Talk:History of the Albanian state

message: It seems to me that the section about Italian occupation should be moved to the next article although technically the World War II had not began whem Albania was occupied. Perhaps part of material could be repeated. Andres 08:34, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

message: Shouldn't this article be merged with History of Albania? --Dans (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal