lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Across

message: Wikipedia is a great way to find word it's like a dictionary a free no money included iwant your first word to across 2605:A200:9501:9B5B:8920:F228:3826:56E4 (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia 

message: Rocks have two distinot grain sizes 180.191.237.116 (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science 

message: Acorss 180.191.237.116 (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science
Talk:Act of war

message: I believe the political meaning is far more notable than the games, and the most likely thing people will be looking for if they search for "act of war". This page should be redirected, or moved out of the way as a parenthesised disambiguation page. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 13:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. --SkyWalker (talk) 07:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect
Talk:Ad Astra

message: This page had some HTML that interfered with the rendering of the page.  Also, the following text was included, apparently for a different language version of this page.
  ## Generale ##
  * Ad Astra #fraza#, o fraza latina insemnand "la stele", iar motto-ul de mai multe organizaţii de
  * Ad Astra " "#magazine#, publicaţia oficială a Space Societatea Nationala
  *  Ad Astra'#jurnal#, Jurnalul universitare lui Roosevelt Academiei
  * Ad Astra #Convenţia# , Toronto literare convenţie de science fiction
  * Ad Astra este un internet extins facilitatea de învăţare în Tasmania, Australia Ad Astra " "#magazine#, publicaţia semestrială a Liceului cu Program Sportiv din Piatra Neamţ, România #fondată de profesorii Ana Vîrlan, Maria Botez, Ilie Popescu, în anul 1999#ISSN 1841-673X. *
Jamal Willstalk 18:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikification and additional matter 
Talk:Jordon Zadorozny

message: See User_talk:198.103.172.9 for warning regarding repeated vandalism of this page.--JSLR 16:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Played drums with Tinker? See discussion at Talk:Tinker (band)#Dubious.Jonpatterns (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Played drums with Tinker?
Talk:Helen Ward (jazz singer)

message: Someone from the IP address 24.70.60.43 recently changed her date of birth from 1913 to 1912. However, a quick search has generated nothing to support this so I have reverted the edit. What I did find though is a website which gives her d.o.b as 1913. The address is below.
http://www.jazzhouse.org/gone/lastpost2.php3?edit=920547543
Cheers Paul20070 21:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of Birth 

message: A search of google brings up a few of Helen Ward's images. A tineye reverse image search shows a couple sites with more images. Is it ok to post one of the non record label images under fair use?
http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/252/2872847.jpg
Cancausecancer 17:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 
Category talk:Titular churches

message: Neddyseagoon, would you be so kind to explain me the need for :Category:Titular churches in Rome? 
In particular, the difference between a Roman basilica and Titular church?
:All (or almost all) titulars are basilicas, but not all basilicas are titulars. St Peter's, for example, is not a titular but is a basilica.  Yes, those exceptions are few, but even so, the titular category is still useful.Neddyseagoon - talk 14:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The category :Category:Basilica churches in Rome does not contain St. Peter's, because that is a Major Basilica. In this sense, the two categories are one the duplicate of the other.--Panarjedde 15:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So the Basilicas cat only contains Minor Basilicas? Neddyseagoon - talk 15:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, because there is a sub category called Major basilicas. Did you check it?--Panarjedde 15:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean :Category:Patriarchal basilicas?  In which case, yes, I did, but it still doesn't mean Titular churches is a duplicate of basilicas, minor basilicas, or patriarchal basilicas - San Teodoro is a titular, but it's not a basilica in the architectural sense, for example. Plus there are churches that are titulars but not basilicas / basilicas but not titulars.  Sorry for my obstinacy in defending this sub-category, but it took the best part of a day or 2 to populate.Neddyseagoon - talk 15:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, in your edits on my church stubs, could you retain the wikilink to the dedicatee, even if you pull it out of the bold Italian name?  You seem to be going through them all deleting them completely.Neddyseagoon - talk 16:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I just figured that titular can also mean a titular see or titular bishop, so 'titular church' might rationally be used of the seat of that see. But experience seems to show that it doesn't, and is only used in the sense of the seat of a titulus (Roman Catholic), so a move might be rational.Neddyseagoon - talk 14:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: earlier comments
Talk:+1

message: What about UTC+01:00?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimplyIrresistible (talk • contribs) 00:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure; I added it.  In the future, you could go ahead and BE BOLD and add such things yourself (unless of course you work for Big Time, in which case it could be considered conflict of interest).--NapoliRoma (talk) 03:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  UTC +1?
Talk:.17 Rimfire

message: A note regarding this page and its conformation (or lack thereof) to the  manual of style; this page not only acts as a disambiguation page, but also serves as an article about a class of items.  For example, you could say the new commercial  .17 caliber rimfire cartridges introduced starting in 2002, and that would include .17 HMR and .17 HM2 and maybe some other cartridge yet to be released.  In that case a link to .17 Rimfire is appropriate there where a link to a specific cartridge is not.  As the manual of style says, "For every style suggestion above, there's some page which has a good reason to do something else...So ignore these guidelines if you have a good reason."  scot 15:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note
Talk:1/2

message: Greetings! Not sure if you are the same person, but regarding this edit this revert, what's the reason you prefer ½ as a single Unicode character? MOS:FRAC says "Do not use precomposed fraction characters such as ½" except in chess articles, and  is generally preferred outside science and math articles. This entry appears to be talking about the fraction one-half generally, and not specifically about the Unicode character? ½ redirects directly to one half. -- Beland (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: MOS:FRAC now allows the use of ½ generally. -- Beland (talk) 02:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fraction markup
Talk:1/3

message: Hey I was thinking someone should start an article or redirection to a similar article about 1/3 as .333 in relation to 3/3 not equalling .999
:1/3=0.333... and 3/3=0.999... ✏✎✍✌✉✈✇✆✃✄Ⓠ‽ (talk) 14:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, actually 3/3 ≠ 0.999, it equals 1. Any fraction that can be reduced to 1/1 is equal to 1.Sumsum2010 · Talk · Contributions 02:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

text: 🤓 85.12.125.92 (talk) 11:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:10,000 (disambiguation)

message: Seems like all of this should be put into 10000 (number). Korky Day 23:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  move all content, I suggest 
Talk:11th Panchen Lama controversy

message: This should be more than a simple disambiguation page.  It is the natural place for material that would otherwise have to be repeated in both of the "target" pages, e.g. the entire story of how we wound up with two purported rival Panchen Lamas. Bertport (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selection of the 11th Panchen Lama 

message: Hey, , I actually think this article probably needs to be completely rewritten. There was a move request a few weeks back, and major revisions were made that reflected that move (from 11th Panchen Lama controversy to 11th Panchen Lama), so this article is currently more about the person Tibet recognizes rather than about the controversy. I've hated to just move it completely back to that earlier version as it would remove a ton of various edits. What do you think? The move was done Oct 11, and the changes were made subsequently during the move discussion. —valereee (talk) 16:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Which version where you thinking of? The October version immediately pre-move  or the August version before the continuous chain of edits ? I haven't seen the controversial discussions and edits here (besides being aware of the two moves), so I might need some more filling in on the article issues. — MarkH21talk 16:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , well, certainly at least as far as the October version. Taking it back to the August version might be seen as a bit aggressive? Although there are some questionable things -- I don't like calling someone "the incarnate" or "incarnation of" in Wikivoice. But maybe could be handled with an edit instead of a revert? And "mysterious death" isn't explained, the sentence doesn't include a source. —valereee (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I parsed through most of the  and it seems that besides the lead, the rest of the changes are mostly minor. It actually wouldn't be too much work to start with the October 11 lead and add any useful well-referenced content from the new lead back into the October 11 lead.Outside of the changes since the move though, there are other issues as you rightly point out. A lot of statements need to be WP:INTEXT attributed and/or sourced to better refs. For example, the statements solely referenced to the Central Tibetan Administration via tibet.net and the unreferenced claims need to be addessed. But these are all edits that need to be done independently of the October 11 differences. — MarkH21talk 17:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , okay, so revert to Oct 11 version? —valereee (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Oct 11 version of just the lead, and then work from there. Most of the new non-lead changes seem fine. — MarkH21talk 19:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, see what you think! —valereee (talk) 19:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks much better! There's still some work to be done on the article and sourcing, but definitely an improvement. — MarkH21talk 21:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  major revisions
Talk:Praetorian prefect

message: The article discusses the role of knights in the selection of the prefects. There were men in the Roman Empire who held positions similar to that of a medieval knight, but there were no 'knights' in the usual sense of the word. A better word would be 'equites'. Galanskov 06:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knights? 

message: I've tried to interpolate as much data from Howe's "The Praetorian Prefects from Commodus to Diocletian" as possible. Please note that the prefecture of Julius Paulus (Paul) is not accepted by Howe (pp.105-6), so his deletion is not a mistake.82.44.82.115 (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits of 29 July 

message: Where did the dates of these people holding these offices come from? All this information, & only a few sources offered. It's the same problem at other language Wikipedias. -- llywrch (talk) 06:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for dates?
Talk:2 (disambiguation)

message: Dear Colleagues,
There is an ongoing discussion on the organization of number pages and number disambiguation pages.
Your comments would be much appreciated!! Please see and participate in:
* Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers#Organization of number pages
Thank you for your participation!
Cheers,
PolarYukon (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Organization of number pages and number disambiguation pages

message: My link buggered in the edit comment, but this Rob Halford band is frequently incorrectly referred to as "2wo" due to the stylization used in promotional materials (similar to how Pink often stylizes as "P!nk").  For confirmation of the correct band name, refer to the United States Copyright Office information in this copyright record and others.  2601:3CA:204:F860:4DEB:52C8:7CB0:F598 (talk) 16:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction of Two (metal band) name
Talk:2004 presidential election

message: 2004 Presidential election presently redirects here, but 2004 Presidential Election redirects to United States presidential election, 2004. I think that all three capitalisations should lead to the same place, so I have nominated both redirects at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 November 19#2004 Presidential election, which may also result in a move of this page. Your comments in that discussion would be welcome. Thryduulf (talk) 12:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presidential elections in 2004
Talk:2011 World Cup

message: as per 2010 World Cup where the South African games were the first point of reference, this ought to be first directed to the cricket world cup until it is over at least. (the most popular tournament). Sure during the runup and the actual tournament we can redirect to Rugby, but then it can be disambiguated again. AS per expected popularity of the 2011 World Cup tag, and its not hard to redirect to serve the customer (the lay reader)Lihaas (talk) 04:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  redirect
Talk:3 (disambiguation)

message: Dear Colleagues,
There is an ongoing discussion on the organization of number pages and number disambiguation pages.
Your comments would be much appreciated!! Please see and participate in:
* Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numbers#Organization_of_number_pages
Thank you for your participation!
Cheers,
PolarYukon (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Organization of number pages and number disambiguation pages

message: Due to the length of the list of albums and the length of this disambiguation page, i propose splitting the "music" section to a separate 3 (music) disambiguation page, wich would be linked from the "3 (disambiguation)" page. Bcharles (talk) 06:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Splitting music section

message: I propose moving the "in technology", "in literature", and "in film" sections from the 3 (number) article to "3 (disambiguation)". The content of these sections would be more appropriate here, though they would require a bit of additional cleanup as well. Bcharles (talk) 06:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think some of it should go but some should stay. Thr3e the novel and film, for example, should go but, for example, that there are three novels/films in a trilogy should stay.  The question being whether the bit is about the number three or some something else called "three" (or "3", "Thr3e", etc.). JIMp talk·cont 21:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Egad! In doing a American Film Institute  (afi.com) search for "Three" I came up with 259 matches for the title and 82 matches for the alternate title. Do we really want such a section in either article?  – S. Rich (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No one is calling for a comprehensive list of titles. For those more notable titles which have articles and might be referred to as "3" or "three", it makes sense to include them in a disambiguation page. If there are too many titles, it might be appropriate to have a separate "3 (film)" disambiguation page similar to the proposed "3 (music)" and "3 (sports)". 75.150.168.6 (talk) 15:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging technology, literature and film sections
Talk:300 (disambiguation)

message: I linked Battle of Thermopylae but was reverted because of the Wiki guideline 'one blue link per single line'.
Now thats OK.  I was reverted for a cited reason.  But looking at the history of the page, editors have attempted to link Battle of Thermopylae more than ten times - and been reverted each and every time.
Surely there is some point where the combined desires of the editors to make this particular link forms an exception to the 'one-blue-link' rule?
I hardly think a single link to the Battle of Thermopylae will make the page too confusing to navigate (potential confusion being the rationale for the one-blue-link rule in the first place).
Ppe42 00:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no point in having it linked. This isn't a disambiguation page for the battle, it's for distinguishing pages that are called "300" from each other.--Cúchullain t/c 18:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:311

message: shouldnt the autoredirect go to the band? or at least to the disambiguation?
i mean, how many people are actually looking up the years 311 in wikipedia?
dont you think that a lot more people are looking for the band?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.194.230.174 (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  311 band
Talk:4 (disambiguation)

message: Dear Colleagues,
There is an ongoing discussion on the organization of number pages and number disambiguation pages.
Your comments would be much appreciated!! Please see and participate in:
* Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numbers#Organization_of_number_pages
Thank you for your participation!
Cheers,
PolarYukon (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Organization of number pages and number disambiguation pages

message: Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers#Municipal Okrugs of Saint Petersburg for a centralized discusion as to whether Municipal Okrugs of Saint Petersburg should be included in these articles. Certes (talk) 11:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Municipal Okrugs of Saint Petersburg
Talk:405

message: I'm trying to find authoritative corroboration of this.  If he did do it, it didn't stay closed for long.  In either case, the self-published work of a political activist with a background in religious studies and philosophy is not a suitable reference. Dppowell 04:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and it happened in 399. Dppowell 04:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honorius closing the Flavian Amphitheatre in 405?
Talk:5 (disambiguation)

message: Dear Colleagues,
There is an ongoing discussion on the organization of number pages and number disambiguation pages.
Your comments would be much appreciated!! Please see and participate in:
* Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numbers#Organization_of_number_pages
Thank you for your participation!
Cheers,
PolarYukon (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Organization of number pages and number disambiguation pages
Talk:727

message: 727, in the osu! community is the most common recognized number and been recognized by people outside of the osu! community. Therefore it should stay permanently. 2600:1006:B022:FB2A:964:5C66:5FB0:E03C (talk) 11:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 727 is a disambiguation page listing topics covered in Wikipedia which might be called "727".  There is no WP:DABMENTION for "727" in osu!.  However important this topic may be, Wikipedia gives it no coverage to which we could guide the reader.  Certes (talk) 13:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Make the osu! 727 reference permanent
Talk:Ping flood

message: Attacker on a T1 line and victim on a dial-up modem seems a bit too disproportionate.... 68.168.80.4 16:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: -Updated to DSL and Dial-Up --88.110.126.38 20:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Modern DSL lines are much faster than T1 (I'm on 17Mbps myself), so what's the point?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.177.144.49 (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Line speeds

message: Should we really tell people how a ping flood attack batch file looks like?  Won't that encourage people to send this type of cyberattack?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.143.120.140 (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since those most likely to need us to write the batch file for them are possibly still on dial-up, or at least not on a very fat pipe, we probably could have one without increasing the number of successful attacks. On the other hand, this is an encyclopedia, not a how-to. I'm just going to wipe the section instead of leaving an ugly asdjnajdkgbl thing there. 68.57.72.229 (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Batch file description

message: If this subject is written about in a computer book, a reference to it would be nice. im not an expert, but i could not find any decent online references, oddly enough.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Print reference needed 

message: Isn't a ping flood a valid (though questionably useful) diagnostic tool when used in short durations? Unix-derived OSes contain the ping -f option which makes it literally that simple (as long as you have su privileges) to start sending the "flood". If ABUSED it's an "attack", but need every use of the command be automatically given that label? I don't personally believe so. 
Some reference may also be wanted as to the fact that *nix systems allow the ping -f command but the Windows ping utility includes no such function.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.93.67 (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not always an attack? 

message: Ping flood is not an attack!
I use ping flood every day to somehow simulate more traffic than simple ping does make. That makes it a quick way to approximate packet loss on wifi for example. So it's actually pretty handy tool. It's bit of a shame it's described as "cyber attack", when it's a rather handy tool that can be misused. 
195.14.156.35 (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an attack but it can also be a diagnostic. I have added a brief discussion with ref. -—Kvng 14:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not an attack!
Talk:Jack & Jill (novel)

message: Did a 6 year old write this? I mean seriously, this is an encyclopedia. "Thru", constant past tense, horrible grammer, and a poor summirization of the entire story? Give me a break.
:I'm sorry, but no. I did not write this article, but that is just sad. I argee entirely. --Chomeara (talk) 12:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ok, who wrote this?
Talk:9000

message: Why is it inapropriate to include a meme on Wikipedia?TheClerksWell (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it appropriate.  I'll put it back. Yesitsnot (talk) 06:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I removed it again.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's back, baby. Yesitsnot (talk) 04:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not in this article.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why not in this article? --202.74.204.121 (talk) 04:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Over 9000 meme
Talk:9001

message: I have added "* The number 9001." - basic math and can potentially stop vandals from added the Dragon Ball meme over and over again.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.94.239 (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

message: A person using a changing IP address has been adding the entry:
* Slightly over 9000 (number)
The entry is correct 9001 is a number slightly over 9000 but I do not think it belongs on the page.  The disambuation page is to get people to the correct page when there are ambiguous articles.  In this case no one would type 9001 into a search box when they are actually looking for 9000.  They would type 9000 and be brought to the right page.  If you disagree please explain why.  ~ GB fan 09:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slow moving edit war