lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Millito Navarro

message: The picture doesn't seem to have any licence information - is this available? ...en passant! 07:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Brookie, I've tried to upload the image and a new one with the tag PD, but for some unknown reason the tag doesn't come out in the upload.  Could you fix it? Tony the Marine 19:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: New picture now loaded and the old one removed! Problem fixed! ...en passant! 08:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: This doesn't make any sense on how did Navarro died. Specificaction to his death are required so it would make more sense. 63.245.95.2 (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm sorry, but...
Talk:Aeshna

message: This list appears to be incomplete, omits species, (I put in isoceles), and has some wrong names. Blue Darner is an American species, A. multicolor, and I don't think it's a synonym of cyanea.
Why is the list alphabetical, and not in taxonomic order like other animal articles. (I've only written one dragonfly article, so i don't know enough to fix this myself). jimfbleak 07:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Query taxonomy
Talk:General of the army of the United States

message: Are Pershing's rank of General of the Armies and Washington's rank of General of the Armies of the United States the same?
It seems not. Public Law 94-479 (1976) reads in part the grade of General of the Armies of the United States is established (my emphasis), indicating that it's a new rank that did not previously exist. Note that the promotion of Dewey was to Admiral of the Navy, not to Admiral of the Navy of the United States .
But compare to the previous Senate Joint Resolution 26, 21 January 1955 which reads in part the office of General of the Armies of the United States (which office is hereby revived for this purpose)... (my emphasis). That suggests to me that this rank is the same as either Pershing's or Grant's, and probably both (as suggested by a related Wikipedia article I now can't find).
So the conclusion either way as to whether they're different ranks is dangerously close to original research, and probably doesn't belong in Wikipedia unless it can itself be sourced. But surely, that is possible?    
It seems likely to remain unclear how Pershing's rank related to that proposed for Macarthur in 1945 and several times subsequent to his retirement. Any official announcement on that has been carefully avoided, as has the question of how Nimitz's proposed 1945 rank of Admiral of the Navy related to Dewey's rank of the same name. Again, that's dangerously close to original research, but again, surely it's so obvious that this is unclear that someone citeable must have said that it is?
On the other hand, Washington vs the rest of the world, and more specifically vs Pershing and vs Grant and vs the various Macarthur proposals, seem clear sort of. Washington's rank was a new one created in 1976, superior to all others and only intended to ever be held by Washington. 
Perhaps it's just unfortunate wording of these and other documents that makes it seem that a different rank of the same name might have existed before. On the other hand, if it did exist, this would not be unique, see Reichsmarschall or even consider Captain. And it does seem that Pershing's rank was not automatically the same as that proposed for Macarthur, despite their having the same or similar names.
In particular, was there a previous rank of General of the Armies of the United States as opposed to General of the Armies (a rank of the United States)? Are these, together with General of the Army of the United States (Grant's rank) and General of the Army (the 1944 rank), four different ranks? If not, how many are there? How close does the equivalence of ranks need to be before they are the same rank (even if by different names)? How different before they are different ranks (even if with the same name)? 
But even if there was a previous rank with the same name as Washington's 1976 appointment, it wasn't the same rank. No furher source is IMO needed to establish this as a fact. Andrewa (talk) 23:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Related questions
Talk:Overdrive (music)

message: Perhaps this page should just be renamed "Distortion Musical Effect" or something like that. I disagree with the proposed merge because this type of distortion is special and deserves a separate discussion.  Overdrive is a bad term for this page, because it requires disambiguation (from e.g. overdrive gears in a transmission) and secondly, it's not a generally accepted term that distinguishes guitar distortion from other types of distortion. Often, just the term "distortion" is used. Moreover, guitar overdrive units are sometimes nothing but preamp stages inserted between a guitar and an amplifier to boost the guitar's signal and obtain distortion from an amplifier which has none. Sometimes the term overdrive refers to a lighter "crunch" distortion used in rock'n'roll and blues. E.g. the kind of distortion used in heavy metal music wouldn't be referred to as overdrive.
--KazKylheku 03:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And what, specifically, makes them different? — Omegatron 01:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: +1 I agree!  Given that overdrive and distortion are varying degrees of the same physical phenomenon (tube or transistor clipping), I think they should be the same topic. Steve CarlsonTalk 00:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and boldly merged this article with Distortion (music).  There was really no content here that wasn't duplicated in significantly more detail in that article.  Please read that article in its entirety before making the decision to revert!  Steve CarlsonTalk 17:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging with Distortion
Talk:Affinity fraud

message: Note: An early version of this article was based on the public domain document "Affinity Fraud: How To Avoid Investment Scams That Target Groups" issued by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Anome (talk • contribs) 07:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The early version was copied word for word from a US government website without copyright, so there is no problem. Mathglot (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original version 

message: I added the Bernard Madoff example yesterday. I admit I was sloppy about not providing footnotes, but they're all on the main article about Madoff, is this OK?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marlasdad (talk • contribs) 17:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Madoff

message: This seems to be quite recent, prominent and well documented example of affinitty fraud . May be worth referencing here.--Magabund 09:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abramoff 

message: What is the message  "The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject." supposed to mean in the context of this article? Was someone suggesting perhaps that they think differently in Nigeria? Or what? And couldn't the same advisory be placed on just about every entry in WIkipedia? --Pleasantville 10:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the selection of frauds listed is a bit US-centric, right? --84.140.157.142 (talk) 22:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advisory message 
Talk:Catherine Millet

message: Maybe April 1 doesn't have the same meaning in France? Too Old 02:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: April Fool?
Talk:Love Songs (Chicago album)

message: On August 31 2005 an unidentified user or users edited the track listing for this CD, deleting some tracks and adding others (including two solo tracks attributed to Peter Cetera; anyone following Chicago closely knows why this is an immediate "red flag"). I'll stop short of labeling this edit as "vandalism" -- it may just be a poorly-informed revision, perhaps based on an unauthorized bootleg copy of the CD -- but all reliable sources (including Amazon.com and the band's official website) indicate that my August 1 track listing was correct.
I have reverted to that track listing, while retaining some subsequent minor edits made by others.  Engineer Bob 08:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Track listing

message: On iTunes, Track 8 "After the love has gone" is replaced by "Love Lives On" from the album "Now" (for copyright reasons?).
Curiously, there are two versions of the album on iTunes, only one of them is affected. 
Should this be mentioned? 2A02:908:1212:F4A0:91A2:6A41:5CB3:B20B (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  iTunes Track Listing
Talk:GlassBridge Enterprises

message: Anyone have any idea what the article Imation (3m) is about? Seems to be another Imation article but doesn't make sense to me. I suggest it should be deleted. Anubis1975 08:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That article seems to be all about identifying 35mm film's manufacturer by its bar code. I am going to merge it into Photographic film, relink the pages that currently go to Imation (3m) to either Photographic film or Imation whichever fits best and then mark Imation (3m) for deletion. Grika Ⓣ 13:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Imation (3m)

message: The article presently lists the ticker as 'GLA' (NYSE listed)... but the underlying shows up under 'GLAE'...?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idfubar (talk • contribs) 21:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ticker Symbol (Changed?)
Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sexual abuse

message: The July 2023 award of $40 million to a victim of child sexual abuse by Jehovahs Witnesses in Hawaii hasn't been added to the article yet. The case is well attested in news reports. 2A00:23C4:6B1D:8501:590D:616D:397E:A744 (talk) 21:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take a look. Thank you for the suggestion. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hawaii Jehovahs Witness child sexual abuse
Talk:Miyako District, Okinawa

message: Why isn't this at Miyako District, Okinawa?  Other districts are in that format Nik42 08:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

message: The map is unclear--which color indicates Miyako District? This should be clarified. 173.89.236.187 (talk) 03:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map is unclear
Talk:Aruna Asaf Ali

message: This seems like a very strong POV to me: "Later she moved out of the publishing house due to internal politics, stunned by greed taking over the creed of her comrades."Fredericknoronha (talk) 23:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Greed and creed

message: Hi, before I created the main page of this article, I noticed that there was a long delete history of 6 edits for copyright violation. (Also see WP:CP) It is sad that a distinguished recipient of Bharat Ratna was unrepresented on Wikipedia so long. Kindly ensure that all comments made are verifiable, NPOV and cited. Most importantly, please keep off copyright violations. Thanks...Gurubrahma 08:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copy Vio

message: ...that this article was featured on the Did You Know? section of the Main Page on 30 September, 2005. The entry read "...that a young Aruna Asaf Ali had to commence the Quit India Movement in 1942 as all the major leaders were arrested the night before to prevent them from reaching the venue?" --Gurubrahma 04:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Did You Know?

message: There is a photo of Aruna Asif Ali on one of Indian government websites http://mea.gov.in/indiaperspective/2005/052005.pdf. Can someone add this to the article?
--Kedar (talk) 10:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  image for this article 

message: On 09 August, 1942 protest was made at historic place outside Katra Neel, Chandni Chowk, Delhi by Sh. Nanak Chand Mishra S/o. Sh. Hanuman Parshad Mishra alongwith his associates.
During the course of firing, Sh. Nanak Chand Mishra sustained "Bullet Injuries".
On 15 August, 1972, Hon'ble Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi honoured Sh. Nanak Chand Mishra with "Tamrapatra" being Freedom Fighter.
 Mishra Ramesh (talk) 11:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quit India Movement - Participation by several persons of Katra Neel, Chandni Chowk, Delhi
Talk:Ford Ranger EV

message: I would rather not merge this article with the standard Ford Ranger article.
This (Ford Ranger EV) is a rather unique vehicle and though it uses the standard Ranger frame and body parts the powertrain is far from a variant of the regular ICE, transmission, fuel tank, and emissions systems.  I believe it warrents it's own article.  Similarly the Chrysler TEVan may have used many of Chrysler's Caravan components.  The Chevrolet S10 EV or E10 used many S10 parts, and the Toyota RAV4 EV used many RAV4 components.  Though these vehicles while sharing parts with other standard models are as unique as are the General Motors EV1 or the Honda EV Plus.  Besides the Ford Ranger wouldn't fall into the :Category:Production Electric vehicles!  --D0li0 09:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: This is a great article. Clearly a lot of work went into it... with that said, there are a few comments that would probably be a better fit for a magazine article. I'm in the middle of making a few modest changes throughout the article to bring it more into line with Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Please discuss here if you think I've gone too far.  Thanks, Gregmg 19:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Encyclopedic content
Talk:Erechtheion

message: This article in general (but particularly the text under the 'Cult objects' heading) does not conform to WP:NOTESSAY, WP:TONE, and WP:PRONOUNS. "If we are to try to discern..." or  "[t]hen there is the problem of the identity of the korai" are instances of the unencyclopedic, relativistic tone that this entire article seems to take in attempting to reflect a variety of scholarly opinions on the subject matter. This could surely be done without the article itself sounding like a meta-commentary or a literature review. yaguzi (talk) 08:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is written like an essay
Talk:Julia Renfro

message: I made an editorial change to make this a little less POV.Wehwalt 10:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Playoffs

message: Playoffs in Major League Baseball --> Current playoff system
...lists Coors Field in Denver as a "Northern Stadium".  I understand that the gist is to cite a locale where winter conditions could exist during a potential playoff game, but Denver is not in the Northern U.S.  Its winter weather comes from being up in the mountains.
- PK9 20:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Northern stadium" 

message: Should any mention of the NCAA playoffs be on this page?  They are almost as high-profile as the professional leagues (one can argue that March Madness is much more popular than the NHL or MLS).  This would also give room for the (lack of) playoff debate for div I football.
- PK9 20:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  College? (NCAA) 

message: In the section on Football(soccer), it says that the world cup used to have a playoff in 1954 and 1958. While this may technically be true, it still has something similar, the knock-out stage played after round 1 (which is round-robin). It might be worthwhile to point this out along the lines of "while the knock-out stage is similar to a playoff, many football fans would not call it such" or something like that. Any consensus on this? Crix 20:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Playoff vs. Knock-out stage 

message: Perhaps someone should add a CFL section?--J3wishVulcan 21:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian Football League 

message: It really surprised me that MLS (Major League Soccer) was not mentioned in this article, maybe someone can include it here. Henryong 11:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *It's added... Rewording are welcomed. Henryong 04:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Kudos. Wahkeenah 11:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good edit. I really think we are approaching a time when we should split this article off into (at least) two articles. What do others think? --Guinnog 11:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And then take bets on how long it will be before someone decides to merge them. :) Wahkeenah 11:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MLS 

message: Isn't this supposed to be in the plural form? --Howard the Duck 15:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Playoffs" is a term for a series of playoff matches in certain sports. Such an event may be notable in and of itself, but the main subject of this article is the playoff as a single entity. I've moved the page and fixed all the redirects. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  This article should be named "playoff". Having it plural simply makes linking this article more difficult when using terms like "playoff system" or "playoff series". --TorsodogTalk 01:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Playoff'''s''' 

message: Should playoff be hyphenated as play-off, or not? There are 42-instances of play-off in the article, and 100+ instances of playoff, can we please be consistent? Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 06:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Both is possible and correct and used.--Je suis blocked by Darkwind 17:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Playoff or Play-off
Talk:Best-of-three playoff

message: While I am usually a fan of merging pages that are stubs or short articles, sometimes a merger is not best. In this case I feel that by merging those articles (Best-of-three playoff, Best-of-five playoff, Best-of-seven playoff, Best-of-nine playoff) into the main Playoff article would make the playoff article far too big. I  have an alternate solution. Why not merge the best-of- articles into one article separate from the playoff article? This would make more sense. Example names could be Playoff structure or Playoff format or playoff series format or playoff series stucture or many other possible names. These are just my thoughts. But I must be clear that I am against all those pages being merged into the main playoff article. Masterhatch 10:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging the best-of-? playoff
Talk:Best-of-five playoff

message: While I am usually a fan of merging pages that are stubs or short articles, sometimes a merger is not best. In this case I feel that by merging those articles (Best-of-three playoff, Best-of-five playoff, Best-of-seven playoff, Best-of-nine playoff) into the main Playoff article would make the playoff article far too big. I  have an alternate solution. Why not merge the best-of- articles into one article separate from the playoff article? This would make more sense. Example names could be Playoff structure or Playoff format or playoff series format or playoff series stucture or many other possible names. These are just my thoughts. But I must be clear that I am against all those pages being merged into the main playoff article.Masterhatch 10:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging the best-of-? playoff
Talk:Best-of-seven playoff

message: While I am usually a fan of merging pages that are stubs or short articles, sometimes a merger is not best. In this case I feel that by merging those articles (Best-of-three playoff, Best-of-five playoff, Best-of-seven playoff, Best-of-nine playoff) into the main Playoff article would make the playoff article far too big. I  have an alternate solution. Why not merge the best-of- articles into one article separate from the playoff article? This would make more sense. Example names could be Playoff structure or Playoff format or playoff series format or playoff series stucture or many other possible names. These are just my thoughts. But I must be clear that I am against all those pages being merged into the main playoff article.Masterhatch 10:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging the best-of-? playoff
Talk:Best-of-nine playoff

message: While I am usually a fan of merging pages that are stubs or short articles, sometimes a merger is not best. In this case I feel that by merging those articles (Best-of-three playoff, Best-of-five playoff, Best-of-seven playoff, Best-of-nine playoff) into the main Playoff article would make the playoff article far too big. I  have an alternate solution. Why not merge the best-of- articles into one article separate from the playoff article? This would make more sense. Example names could be Playoff structure or Playoff format or playoff series format or playoff series stucture or many other possible names. These are just my thoughts. But I must be clear that I am against all those pages being merged into the main playoff article.Masterhatch 10:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging the best-of-? playoff
Talk:Sharleen Spiteri

message: Is it possible to use more of a "closeup" picture of Sharleen to head the article? I can hardly make her out from the one that's there at present.
Meltingpot (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is the URL site for the Graham Norton interview .  Hope this helps. - Tony 171.71.55.235 (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: This article is far too focussed on Texas. There already is a Wikipedia article on the band. SS's article should focus on her.
Also, there is some redundancy in the writing.
For example, "she co-founded the band while still a hairdresser" is repeated.
DrLeonP (talk) 04:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that Geography might also be a useful subject to take: Bellshill is not “nearby” to Balloch, as the article suggests; it’s over thirty miles away, and on completely the other side of Glasgow. I realize that some may argue that it’s “nearby” comparative to Tokyo or Sydney Australia, but would suggest that dropping it entirely removes any sense of false proxiity. Jock123 (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs to be edited. 

message: I've re-worked another image on the Commons to make it suitable for use in the infobox, as I thought the background of the previous image, and the previous version of the new image, was a little distracting. The new image is more focussed on the subject. nagualdesign 22:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  New infobox image