lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Andria

message: like for other Cities of Italy and for cities in WP in general. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 10:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening heading 

message: * "Andria" in the Encyclopædia Britannica, 9th ed., Vol. II, p. 21–22.
 — LlywelynII 03:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources for article expansion
Talk:Barbara Park

message: WikiProject Biography Assessment Drive
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 05:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 

message: I am looking at working up an article in my userspace, and simply replacing the current text with what I come up with. Does anyone who watches this article have any objections to this? Bellwether BC 20:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are there any objections to an extensive rewrite?
Talk:Dane Bowers

message: Should his involvement in the MMA organisation 'Knuckle Up' be mentioned as I believe he owns it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.98.218 (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: A previous edit by Gungadin seemed to me to overstate how influential Another Level were.  They seemed to me run-of-the-mill boyband of only temporary prominence.  What I think, though, doesn't really matter - but unsupported assertions do.  Can anyone back these statements up? PeteinBrum 23:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Level 

message: I removed information about a sex tape and drink driving because they were unreferenced. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. Please find sources if you want to re-add these. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 11:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreferenced BLP 

message: This article says 28 November, Another Level (band) says 29 November. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 12:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of birth 

message: Unreleased album with insufficient coverage to justify an article. Merge/redirect would satisfy guidelines at WP:NALBUM Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 06:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Klbrain (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Facing the Crowd (album)]] 
Talk:List of storms named Gretel

message: Can someone please add that this page is disambiguation-quality? I would, but I don't know how. 🐔Chicdat  (talk) 11:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambig-quality?

message: There's next to nothing here. I propose it be merged. Hurricanehink 23:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge?
Talk:Accrington F.C.

message: Don't think all the stuff about Stanley's recent success should be included here - it's already on the Stanley page and they are not the same club as the one this page is about............. ChrisTheDude 23:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Accrington Stanley

message: Agree with above, it seems to have been removed.  I've tidied up the journalese a bit and removed the singular/plural confusion.
As an experiment, I've included early on a summary of performance in the Football League.  While this could be obtained by analysing the information on the page, that isn't true of all League clubs, including such luminaries as Man U.  I propose to do this eventually for all past and present league clubs (I started with Accrington as the first League club to leave the League) subject to securing the data, and to add FA Cup performance similarly.  I feel this is what is most useful to readers other than enthusiasts who want the blow-by-blow account given in the detailed sections.  Comments welcomed. Chrismorey (talk) 01:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Experiment 
Talk:Harvard Yard

message: Could someone relate the origins of the Yard as a cow yard and explain how Harvard came to own it and when the first trees were planted?
--Edit07 19:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Hammonds paper  is a treasure trove from which a great article could be built. EEng (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: History needed

message: Anyone know the events that led to the deletion of the neabry-Radcliffe Yard's article? Was it a stub? or was it a worthwhile article?  One that could even be brought back from a deletion (with relevent undelete discussion)? Reason being, the Radcliffe Yard area is going to be reused by Harvard it hasn't become defunt... Further, that yard and its immediate environs, following their huge refurbishment seem to be (atleast--partly) the home of the continuing ed. division of Harvard. CaribDigita (talk) 12:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Radcliffe Yard is very important, which those who haven't visited Radcliffe Yard may not appreciate. MaynardClark (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trying to find a deletion discussion for [[Radcliffe Yard]] 

message: *Great pics~  — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talk • contribs) 04:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  More pics 

message: Is Harvard Yard not referred to as a quad? There is no mention of it in the article, even though it is listed in the given link. Seasider53 (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quad
Talk:Computer operator

message: Article content removed. Dave Spart 14:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

message: As I worked through some of these positions, about the only information I can find out about them are job listings. It seems to me that that would be a reputable source, but I haven't been able to find any books or articles yet. Are we okay with that?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TitanOfOld (talk • contribs) 03:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Job Description for Citations 

message: Moved this section of Pi314m's  (and ) to talk page: —Ost (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:   Thanks; HASP/ASP is multi-faceted: 
* main console commands, releasing jobs placed in "hold" by the submitter (e.g. to find tape(s) to be mounted)
* remote console commands - looking in job queues to answer "where's my job" and to possibly re-"route" (large) printed outputs Pi314m (talk) 03:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  stuff to add in 

message: The examples in Computer operator#Tape librarian could be better chosen.
The AS/400 is a complete system. Wouldn't it be better to cite a specific tape drive on the AS/400.
The  IBM 3850 is a mass storage system (MSS). While the operator can insert and eject cartridges from the MSS, in normal use cartridges reside there for extended periods, if not permanently.
Some better examples might be
*DECtape on a DEC PDP-6
*IBM 2401 on an IBM S/360
*IBM 3420 on an IBM S/370
plus some from other vendors. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tape operator examples 

message: I believe that the reference to a light pen was meant for the 370/158. In addition
# It's the 370/158 that represents a radical change; a 3270 with a light pen replaces almost all of the displays and controls of the 370/155.
# Feature 5450 of the 360/85, the IBM 3066 Model 1 of the 370/165 and the 3066 Model 2 of the 370/168 should be lumped together. All of them included the keyboard/display, the document viewer and a second microfiche display for indicators.
The entire Beyond the IBM System/360 era section belongs in Front panel or System console. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beyond the IBM System/360 era
Talk:Aurel Babeș

message: Does anybody know where I can find the title (or text) of the first publication by Aurel Babes? Eugen Ivan 23:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Weird. Tried it again, got the same error. Maybe this is something that you have to be logged into, and then it behaves differently? - Jmabel | Talk 05:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Wikipedia talk:Edit count

message: Can someone please add a section on edit counting now that enwiki isnt replicating to the toolserver? Thanks, -Reuvenk[T][C] 23:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

message: :I think that we should avoid merging this article with edit counters, but we might want to mention edit counters in it like Reuvenk stated above. Any reasons why anything would necessitate merging? _Ruff 04:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, we do not need to merge this. They are different subjects; one refers to the idea, and the other refers to the device. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 00:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Totally different. Dev920 (Tory?) 17:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed and this merge request is too old and lacks reasoning. I'm removing it. Mkdw 20:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not anyone of you go and inform this unmerging matter to User:Linas? As from what I have found out from this article's history page recently, he is the one who tagged or embedded the merging template onto it on the 4th of May, 2006AD. --onWheeZierPLot 21:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To merge or not to merge 

message: Again another Wikipedian statistical phenomenon has arrived! However, vandalisms and inactive users aside. First off for mine third compliment and perhaps the forth for this Wikipedia itself, I truly praise, commend and greatly congratulate this English Wikipedia once again for surpassing yet anoher Wiki-record of the One Hundred Millionth (or in figures: 100,000,000) mark of the total Wikipedians' Edit Counts!!! Yet this whopping number of what both users and Wikipedians have made up of this big free encyclopedia ever since July 2002AD and yet they never stop growing (as stated and based on/in the Wikipedian User Statistics)! WOW, what else can I say to express here, man!!? Thus, Congratulations and Kudos to the English Wikipedia! Keep the numbers going and keep on editing and contributing for more! Yaaahooooo!!! --onWheeZierPLot 00:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  100,000,000 edit counts! Yeehah! 

message: Section What is an edit count, link original edit counter is no longer valid. Not sure how/where I should report it. — Superuser27  talk 07:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link broken
Talk:Hākuturi

message: Refering to your (now reverted) edits to Hākuturi. A lot of Polynesian myth articles have the Sources section this way. I like them to be consistent. Kahuroa 04:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read this.  Thanks, zappa 04:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll leave it as is, but I would reccomend conforming to other Wikipedia article's style of a ==References== section at the bottom of the page.  Thanks, zappa 04:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the weeks since that discussion happened, I have rewritten a lot of the Poly. Myth. articles, an ongoing project, involving rewrites, finding references for them, untangling articles that mixed the traditions of different Polynesian cultures, and changing the references style to conform to the recommended practice. Kahuroa 00:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: From [[User talk:Zappa.jake|zappa's talk page]]
Talk:John Grey (knight)

message: And one source, on the history of the peerage, gives them four.  Since the article lists three, I think we're still off by one.  I'll fix.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.45.198 (talk) 23:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That is ALL they had; three. The one source used is a self-published source which is not acceptable. Richardson clearly states two sons and one daughter, Constance, wife of Sir Richard Herbert. Magna Carta Google eBook Which History of Peerage gives them four children? The Alice Grey who married Knyvett is the daughter of John Grey, Esq. and his wife Elizabeth according to Richardson.  -- Lady Meg (talk) 23:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  They had at least 3 children
Talk:Memon (tribe)

message: Memon ethnic group and Memon (tribe) are distinct cultural groups.
Siddiqui 00:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

message: Are verifiable third-part sources that prove that a Memon "tribe" exists? If not, then I suggest that this article be merged into Sindhi Memon Park3r 17:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge: Original Research? 

message: For the year 2006-07, let us concentrate on upgrading the contents as decided: Wales to upgrade quality of Wiki. Thanks. --Bhadani 03:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Let us upgrade
Talk:Daniel Webster Jones

message: Hey, I'm in the middle of beginning this article, and I noticed that you changed the title from Daniel Webster Jones (1830-1915) to Daniel Webster Jones (Mormon) while I was actually creating it.  I haven't done a lot of editing yet, and this is still intended to be a stub,  so maybe I'm missing some protocol, but I created it with the dates to distinguish him from the Arkansas governor (1839-1918) (which, I just looked at and see you've switched to governor as well.  I did change the "what links here" sites and was in process of adding links to other articles such as Mesa, Arizona and Fay Wray.  Why is governor/Mormon more appropriate to distinguish individuals than their birth/death dates?  Additionally, DWJ (1830-1915/Mormon) is of interest to Western American history generally, not just Mormon history, and there is another figure, Dan Jones (Welsh missionary), in Mormon history who would probably eventually need to be disambiguated from the others.
I understand the simplicity of a one-word title; and I guess if I consider it, I can't really think of a better single word to distinguish DWJ (1830-1915) (though I do have a bit of a problem with the implied exclusivity of interest which might result from the title).  Also, whose responsibility is it to change the "What links here" pages for the governor and the Mormon?
Thanks
Ryan Reeder 21:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't done anything since changing the titles - I haven't edited anything else.  Gererally, I don't edit under IPs unless I forget to log it and my cookies are broken, which doesn't happen often.  Since your first message, I have been looking around the WP: namespace trying to find a style page about naming convention for people with similar names, but I haven't found anything official.  I guess 95% of the time when I see two similarly named people around on Wikipedia, they are either distinguished with middle names or nicknames, or, if not, with (their occupation) after their name.  For an example, see John Lee.  Also, about changing the links with the governor, you really don't have to do that - they will redirect.  When you move a page, it automatically redirects links to the old page to the new page.  You have to check for double redirects, in the situation of A->B->C, where I want to get to A from a starting point, but the page is actually located at C, then the redirecting system will only take me to B.  That is sort of confusing I realize, but I guess I don't know how to put it more clearly.  But anyways, I checked for double redirects, and there were none, so the links don't need to be changed.  I hope I didn't cause an edit conflict.  Later, zappa 22:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: From [[User talk:Zappa.jake|zappa's talk page]]
Talk:Central Connector

message: For crying out loud, while the author is trying to nitpick articles of existing roads (or roads that used to exist) to death, we have here a road that never existed!  I was tempted to put it up for AfD, but on second thought, a merge to the article on the authority that proposed it in the first place would be more beneficial to Wikipedia and more appropriate.  Let it be known, however, if this article for the nonexistent road comes up for AfD, I'll log in from home and push hard for its erasure. 147.70.242.39 00:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal
Talk:Gary Wamsley

message: Well, I've read the criteria and I'm confused.  I thought the point was to contribute.  Every time I contribute someone marks for deletion from England with no earthly background in what I am writing about.  Just about to give up.  Someone else can figure this out.  I was trying to flesh out areas of interest to literally thousands of people. Others have told me of this problem.  
Ryan Lanham 00:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Moby Dick (instrumental)

message: I propose that the page for "Over the Top" be merged into the page for "Moby Dick". It is the same song, just played under a different title for a single concert tour. There is no need for the there to be two separate wikipedia entries. It is an unnecessary duplication of information Edelmand 08:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Merger

message: Should "Pat's Delight" be its own page? This page even states that it had a completely different guitar riff, and honestly its an entirely different arrangement all together. I think it should be a completely separate page for this reason. "Over the Top" should be merged to the "Out On the Tiles" page, because it was just the intro of "Out On the Tiles" played before the solo followed by Moby Dick at the end. But "Pat's Delight" is a completely different song at both the beginning and end, which I think warrants recognizing it as a different drum show piece than "Moby Dick" Mcgoum20 (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pat's Delight
Talk:Ali Akbar Moradi

message: I disagree, nothing wrong with this article and its reference so it would be great if you could describe the situation better.
Thank You—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Retau (talk • contribs) 01:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This is a word for word copy of the source as it relates to Mr Moradi. You will need to rewrite the article in your own words based on the article and other references so that it doesn't breach their copyright. Alternatively, you can obtain the permission of the copyright holder. Capitalistroadster 04:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright violation
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 41

message: Why don't we work on a standard for display in the same manner that was done for dates. One date is stored and both European and US formats can be display. US vs Metric would involve some coding but there is no reason why both can't be added into the text, but only one is displayed. Both data points can be added into a template and depending which one was chosen to display in the preferences, that one would display. It would be easy to convert every measurement into both units and display the one of choice. Anyone else think it would work? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US vs metric
Talk:C++ Technical Report 1

message: I've been a computer programmer for 25 years, and I have never used any of the functions listed under numerical facilities.  Why would anyone propose a standard that includes these?  One might just as well propose a standard to include a chess engine and a solitaire solver.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.54.117 (talk) 08:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numerical Facilities 

message: Why does all the "TR2" links I find on Wikipedia points to this page instead of a new page that would have at least the informations we already know about what to expect from TR2? see end of the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2B0x
MJKlaim (talk) 22:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It exists as a redirect because not enough information exists to warrant a stand-alone article, or no one has taken the effort to gather the necessary information and create the article. decltype (talk) 05:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  TR2 page
Talk:Self-incompatibility

message: There are more systems, but, what should that third system in Potentilla/Dasiphora fruticosa be? Is there any literature? Innes and Lenz call it gametophytic, so it's not a new system. (Innes, R.L. and L.M. Lenz. 1990. A Genetic Analysis of Self-Incompatibility and Double Flowers in Potentilla fruticosa L. Euphytica 51:241-248.) --134.93.62.50 00:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third System? 

message: Following a discussion in the Hebrew Wikipedia about whether or not each species should have its own article, the subject of the self-incompatibility article has also risen. Someone claims that this article should be split - as it relates to different mechanisms which are evolutionarily independent. One of the disadvantages of the current (merged) format, is that the S locus, described for different mechanisms in parallel, can be mistakenly conceived to consist of a single locus for all mechanisms. Do you think this article should be split? You are also welcome to state your opinion about the one species-one article idea, although Wikipedia's policy was already stated here: . 
Thank you in advance, Gidip 20:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If any one section gets too big, then it should be budded off, and the article should take on a summary format. I don't think it matters that it's evolved many times, as this is about a set of mechanisms that have the function. —Pengo 07:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Should We Split This Article?

message: I am thinking of doing some major editing to this article and so thought I would make my plants avalible.
Intro
1 - Heteromorphic SI
2 - S-RNase GSI (intro)
2.1 S-RNAse
2.2 Male Specificity Determinant
2.3 Modifier Genes
2.4 Gate Keeper Model
2.5 Inhibitor model
3 - GSI in the Papaverceae
3.1 S proteins
3.2 Mechanism of incompatibility
4 - SSI
4.1 SRK and SLG
4.2 SCR/SP11
4.3 Mechanism
4.4 Dominace and Genetic Complexities
And then other sections already in the article. (Million_Moments 14:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Restructure
Talk:West Virginia & Regional History Center

message: User 170.53.96.25 removed a piece of this article concerning the 35-star flag at the West Virginia Collection.  Specifically, he noted that the flag was, in fact, not one of only 5 remaining flags of this type.  The university seems to swear by this though and when I asked the school about it, they informed me that it is, in fact, one of only 5 remaining 35-star flags known to exist from the period.  I therefore reverted the edit by 170.53.96.25.  If information can be brought to light refuting the university's claim, we can then proceed and re-remove that information. --ScottyBoy900Q 01:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 35 Star Flag
Talk:Radithor

message: I've removed this entirely spurious material. The Oak Ridge article is very clear on the constituents of Radithor: "Prior to being emptied, the bottle pictured at left contained one-half ounce of Radithor, i.e., triple distilled water guaranteed to contain at least 1 microcurie each of Ra-226 and Ra-228." The bottle label in the image reads "Contains Radium and Mesothorium in Triple Distilled Water" ('Mesothorium' - strictly, 'Mesothorium I' - is an outdated name for Ra-228)
No mention of "isothiouranium". Perhaps the original contributor had got muddled up with isothiouronium salts, which are derivatives of thiourea, have nothing to do with uranium, and are not radioactive. Kay Dekker (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Isothiouranium" 

message: Laudanum wasn't quackery in the sense that it had no medical purpose whatsoever; the mixture of opium and alcohol is effective as a painkiller even if the substance was misued and inappropriately given to children.Factsontheground (talk) 12:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison with [[Laudanum]]

message: "Scientific American; August 1993; The Great Radium Scandal; by Roger Macklis" link under a paywall.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuisBrudna (talk • contribs) 16:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: *Roger Macklis, "Radithor and the Era of Mild Radium Therapy” (JAMA 264 (5):614-621, Aug. 1, 1990)
*Roger Macklis, “The Great Radium Scandal” (Scientific American, 94-99, Aug. 1993)
*https://www.orau.org/health-physics-museum/collection/radioactive-quack-cures/pills-potions-and-other-miscellany/radithor.html
EEng 23:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources