lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Fractional ownership of aircraft

message: This article is flagged for copyright infringement.
But the url where the "original" material is shown was only registered on 13th May 2014 (http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?domain=airassetcompany.com Creation Date: 2014-05-13T15:00:10Z)
The wikipedia content was created in 2006.
So the wikipedia content predates the url, suggesting that the the url airassetcompany.com copied the information from wikipedia, rather than vice-versa.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncop (talk • contribs) 19:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

message: Some things are misspelled KingScHemc (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar
Talk:Gull wing

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: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) – Hilst [talk] 00:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: WikiProject Physics has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Aviation has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Relisting comment: Relisting for clearer consensus. BD2412 T 16:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 28 February 2024
Talk:Cameron (surname)

message: When there is a disambiguation page then the list under that name shouldn't appear here - it is not necessary and not all the names find their way here.  I have removed names under disambiguation names.--Brenont (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I added (restored) John Allan Cameron before noticing your post here or what you’d just done, even though he’s listed at John Cameron (disambiguation). I have never actually heard him called only “John Cameron”, and I believe he’s always credited under his full name, which I think makes for something of an exception, as if he had a hyphenated forename. What do you think?—Odysseus1479 20:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: My great grandfather who was William Ross Cameron helped organize the first mental health station in the nation. Also, he organized many health centers in the country. Most notably, he participated in studies of cancer districts in the United States. The studies he conducted received notoriety in Life Magazine and Paris Match. I would love to see his name on Wikipedia. Rosscameron (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: lists like these are only supposed to include people with their own article. From your description he might well qualify; the most relevant criteria are described at Wikipedia:Notability (people). You can post a request for an article at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biography/People in medicine.—Odysseus1479 21:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: William Ross Cameron
Talk:Icing conditions

message: Shouldn't this article be titled Aircraft Icing Conditions?  Or perhaps just Aircraft Icing?  Currently, aircraft-icing material is scatterred in several places.  "Aircraft Icing" redirects to "Atmospheric Icing", and "Ice Protection Systems" contains material on aircraft icing effects that appears nowhere else.  (Some of this material I contributed myself, because I didn't know where else to put it.)
I think there should be a top-level article entitled "Aircraft Icing" that references "Ice Protection Systems".  The primary discussion of the thermodynamic and atmospheric physics that cause ice accretion on aircraft should be discussed in the "Aircraft Icing" article.  For example, the discussion of the various structures of icing in this article is quite useful — I've seen it nowhere else.  In addition, the "Aircraft Icing" article should describe the aerodynamic affects of aircraft icing and the related degradation of aircraft flight dynamics (for example, the material I added to the "Ice Protection Systems" article).  "Ice Protection Systems" should describe or reference anti-icing and de-icing systems, and have only a short summary of aircraft icing mechanisms and effects.  "Atmospheric Icing" should include a short summary of aircraft icing and reference that article.  
BTW, I'm a relative newbie to Wikipedia editing: I probably should be making these comments in a broader forum, but I'm not sure where that would be.
Jamesmelody (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title change: Aircraft icing conditions 

message: It seems we have three different articles on this topic that could be effectively combined into one article:
* Atmospheric icing
* Ice protection system
* Icing conditions
I would suggest that we merge all the articles into Atmospheric icing, possibly renaming it to Atmospheric icing conditions.
The FAA website frequently refers to Atmospheric icing conditions and also uses this terminology in the FAR: []
What are your thoughts?
PolarYukon (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree. I believe the content of these three pages could be grouped in an article called Aircraft icing to avoid ambiguity with non-aviation icing. I am placing merger proposal banners on all three articles right now. Ariadacapo (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is some overlap but it's fairly clear that Ice protection system should describe only the aircraft systems (which should not appear in the other two articles). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  It’s clear indeed that Ice protection system should be a separate article; but as it stands its content is mostly about all the different types of aircraft icings that can occur. I believe that if it’s not merged, it needs to be re-written to avoid overlap. Ariadacapo (talk) 06:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: How can we make this actually happen? This merge discussion appears to be pretty old, and nothing's unfortunately happened as of yet. Guy1890 (talk) 02:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge discussion
Talk:Validation des Acquis de l'Expérience

message: This section needs copy-editing but I have not done it because there is too much "citation needed". I think the unsourced parts such as "At the beginning the French professors and universities were reluctant to apply the VAE or were extremely difficult for the equivalences" could be deleted but I would like confirmation from someone before doing so. Haikini (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recognition of the VAE process
Talk:Lufbery circle

message: I just watched the P-47 Thunderbolt episode of History Channel's "Dogfights" series, where they describe a fairly offensive mode to employ the Lufbery circle. 
A Thunderbolt returning from a ground attack missions was caught by 20 German Bf 109. After a deep dive, the P47 pilot tried to climb for the cloud cover to get away, which the vastly superior German force attempted to prevent by forming two counterrotating Lufberys next to each other right below the clouds. "If the P47 tries to run in any direction", the commentary explains, "they can easily dive and shoot him down."
The relevant parts of the episode may be accessed on Youtube under 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omO5VXOBZ80&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG7SK53uVOQ&feature=related
::But this is not a "Lufbery" circle - the aircraft are not circling to cover each other's tails against fighter attack - but to remain in roughly the same position, and to be ready to pounce in any direction. The tendency for ANY turning manoeuver to be called a "Lufbery" is obviously very confusing. Incidentally I have made major changes in the article - comments welcome of course! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Purely defensive?

message: Can someone include a picture of this?  216.51.189.93 (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: This article makes multiple claims that aren't properly referenced, and one isn't even discussed in the cited sources.
In the History section, the last paragraph says: 
"Although the Lufbery would seem to expose modern aircraft to missiles and unchecked gunnery passes, US pilots in the Vietnam War found North Vietnamese MiG-17 fighters using it as bait for faster F-4 Phantom fighters that did not have guns and could not use their missiles because of tight turns made by the MiGs."
However, I found no mention of the Vietnam war in the 2022 reference "The Flying Tank", one other reference is dated 1933 and the other speaks to WWII (the Lundstrom book seems to be cited confusingly – is it just me?)
There are multiple other parapgraphs that have no citations, but perhaps these claims are sourced from the references? 222.152.185.132 (talk) 00:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  lack of citations
Talk:Near space

message: There is no consensus that there is a word "near space" that means the upper atmosphere. 
I suggest that this article be turned into a redirect to the article mesosphere, which seems to be the primary content of this article.  Useful content in this article, if there is any, could be added to that article.Guy who reads a lot (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there are no objections to the change since I suggested it two years ago, I transfered the content of this article to mesophere and changed this article to a redirect to that article. Guy who reads a lot (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does not exist
Talk:Propeller synchronization

message: Good description of what it does, but nothing about how automatic sync is achieved. More, please! Ddsinvanws (talk) 08:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  But how? 

message: would be great way of illustrating the problem Doug Grinbergs (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  out-of-sync spectrogram
Talk:QFF

message: This might help: http://www.auf.asn.au/groundschool/umodule3.html Ozy42 (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: references
Talk:Retreating blade stall

message: "Retreating blade stall starts at the tip region and develops inboard (one of the exam questions in Helicopter Principles of Flights)."
Is this actually true? Pilot manuals (particularly in the US, it seems) tend to religiously state that Angle of Attack is the *only* thing that induces stall. This is not true, as the example of a wing (at any angle) within a 0 airspeed environment clearly being in a stalled state shows. It does make for a simple and mostly accurate rule for pilots to follow, which is why they use it, I guess.
There are obviously various factors involved, but I was told several decades ago, that generally about 10% of the inner rotor is nearly always at stall, since it doesnt have enough airspeed to induce lift. This area expanded in the appropriate direction as the rotor approached uncontrollable conditions.
I realize that extremely flexible blades may twist so much at high speed as to induce stall also, and this certainly seems to be the modern method of making them. But in this case the load on the advancing side is much higher, and would induce more twist, thus causing that side to stall first. This is not the case in practice, and why it's called *retreating* blade stall. I wonder if the topic needs expansion or correction.07:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  tip region 

message: Although this article initially mentions both helicopters and other rotorcraft, there isn't any discussion of other forms of rotorcraft, and the description of recovery techniques and causes is applicable only to helicopters.  In particular, gyroplanes are another form of rotorcraft that can experience retreating blade stall, but generally do not have a collective control to be used in recovery, and are not subject to increased risk from high loads or high density altitude.  A helicopter has an rpm limit arising from the powertrain that cannot be changed with load or air density and that makes many of the listed factors pertinent, but the unpowered rotor in a gyroplane is not limited in that fashion and automatically increases autorotative rpm with load and loss of density.  Expanding this article to include gyroplane behavior would be worthwhile.Jonwithnoh (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other forms of rotorcraft 

message: This section should be removed as it is secondary to the discussion of retreating blade stall and contains many factual errors e.g. the statement regarding the role of the lag (or in-plane) motion of the blade is not relevant in this context. Flapping occurs due to the asymmetry of lift on the advancing and retreating blades. This is compensated by changing the pitch of the blades and hence the angle of attack. It is the high angle of attack (at the associated local freestream Mach No. that can lead to stalling).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabman267 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compensation
Talk:Bordeaux mixture

message: "where nonorganic gardeners would prefer other controls." Seems unnecessay to the sentence, more a snide bias towards chemical methods. It would be more professional to simply list  other control methods and allow the reader to decide? TaylorLeem (talk) 02:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objection as biased 

message: this has been banned in the UK due to fears over soil accumilation and long term toxicity to microbes. its worth adding a bit on this. 84.66.216.95 (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  banning in several countries
Talk:Step climb

message: Aircraft are in fact becoming lighter in the technical sense, since they are slightly reducing the effect of gravity by increasing their altitude. However, the amount by which they become lighter is not what is contributing to the ability to increase their cruising speed, that is almost entirely due to the atmospheric conditions (density of the air, wind, etc).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.205.56.234 (talk) 07:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aircraft "lightness"
Talk:List of IndyCar fatalities

message: The article says "This is a list compiling drivers who have been fatally injured in American Championship Car Racing, since 1982. The list recognizes "Indy car" or "Champ car" fatalities under the following sanctioning bodies:     * Championship Auto Racing Teams (1979-2008)    * Indy Racing League (1996-present)".
The naming of this article is improper because it sounds to imply that this is the list for deaths in Champ Car World Series (2004-2008). This article should be properly renamed or split into two articles (one for CART/CCWS and one for IndyCar). Besides, the timeframes do not match: first the article first says 1982 and then it shows 1979-. Also, Indy Racing League should probably replaced by IndyCar since the two are not synonyms and the first includes the second plus another minor category.
ICE77 (talk) 18:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improper article name
Talk:Planet Drum

message: The cited Allmusic reference says that this album was released in December 1991. For the article to be changed to specify a different release date, as in this edit, we would want to have one or more reliable sources to base that on.  It's possible that the Allmusic date is incorrect, but we should have some evidence for that before we change the article.  — Mudwater (Talk) 00:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release date
Talk:Future Imagery Architecture

message: It looks like the FIA program was replaced by one called BASIC (Broad Area Satellite Imagery Collection), of considerably smaller size. The reference on the FIA page (http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/fia.htm) gives details. Maybe someone's interested to start a BASIC page. 166.2.184.236 (talk) 01:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks interesting, feel free to add a mention of it here or I'll try to get to it soon.  Remember if you register an account you'll be able to start new articles. Joshdboz (talk) 01:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  BASIC 
Talk:Dale Fuller (actress)

message: This page should probably be retitled Dale Fuller (actress). --206.188.36.191 (talk) 22:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Only probably? Lugnuts (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not one of you wikistodians. You can figure it out yourself champ.--66.212.78.220 (talk) 19:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's super! Lugnuts (talk) 07:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Bob Lobel

message: I am removing the following paragraph from this article due to its not meeting the guidelines layed out in WP:BLP
"During the late 1990s and continuing into the 2000s, Lobel is accused of often going on the air while drunk. In 2005, he sued cartoonist Darby Conley when his comic strip Get Fuzzy made light of those accusations, but later settled out of court. In late 2004, the Boston Herald reported that he had an extra-marital affair. Lobel has denied all allegations, but has admitted he has been diagnosed with attention deficit disorder."
If someone wants to add the necessary citations, feel free to put it back.--Jfluke 19:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations Needed 

message: I think it shoud be mentioned he appeared in an episode of Cheers. He got one line. Something like, "Sam, the TV is on the fritz again." 151.203.70.159 (talk) 12:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cheers
Talk:Beurre blanc

message: Hi, just letting you know that I reverted back the revert you did on my modifications to the beurre blanc sauce entry. The claim about the origin of the sauce involving the Marquis de Goulaine is historically inaccurate. Please see the link I have supplied as reference. It is a link to the official website of the village in which the sauce was invented and thus is an authoritative source. I haven't mastered the reference function in Wikipedia so if you see fit, please correct that. Thank you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.191.190.128 (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: An emulsion of unmelted butter in a reduction of vinegar or white wine. The somewhat fade literary trope of the "invention" of a new dish when some ingredient was "forgotten" or unavailable, is perfectly standard legend-making in what passes for culinary history, where the credibility hurdles are set exceptionally low. --Wetman (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, you've missed the most important ingredient which is gray shallots. If you disqualify beurre blanc as invention then you'll also have to toss out other three ingredient wonders like Norwegian fårikål. And even though I have no idea what literary tropes have to do with any of this (stumbled perhaps did you on a Paul De Man book?), the sauce is anything but fade, is quite flavourful, and without the right tour de main the untalented will indeed end up with a messy looking pot of melted butter. Was this perhaps your experience? Finally, whatever the murky legend of its origins, in the case of this sauce no credible sources dispute the identity of the creator.79.160.162.79 (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I re-wrote the first line, changing "rich, hot butter sauce" to "hot emulsified butter sauce". The word "rich" is unencycclopaedic, since the word "rich" is a subjective measure, with no real objective meaning. 124.149.65.55 (talk) 06:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Butter churn

message: I don't understand the sentence that says "The membranes that surround the fats are broken down, subsequently forming clumps known as butter grains." Is it the membranes that form clumps, or is it the fats? I suspect the latter, but on the face of it the sentence says the membranes form clumps. UBJ 43X (talk) 00:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear sentence
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Streets

message: I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
*John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.)
and turns it into something like
* John Smith "" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
It will work on a variety of links, including those from ,  and .
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
-  Headbomb {t · c · p · b}
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  User script to detect unreliable sources 

message: Project members are invited to help improve the new stub Post Alley (Seattle). Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post Alley 

message: There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Lake Shore Drive#Requested move 28 October 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move at [[Talk:Lake Shore Drive#Requested move 28 October 2022]] 

message: Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a  parameter to , which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to , and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.
However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass  a new  parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project-independent quality assessments
Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Jonathan

message: Category talk:1
Category:1
Help:2
Image:57
Mainspace621
Talk:29
Template talk:4
Template:35
User talk:504
User:313
Wikipedia talk:9
Wikipedia:321
avg edits per page 1.94
earliest19:01, 2 February 2007
number of unique pages978
total1897
* The edit count was retrieved from this link at 20:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit count for Jonathan

message: Just of note, I've restored a comment that was removed earlier in the RFA.  Please don't remove others comments.  No matter is the nom is self supporting, don't remove it.  Regards, Mercury 20:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In theory, this is correct. As a practical matter, in the context of this situation, the reversion was probably not necessary. Newyorkbrad 20:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment restoration