lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Schnoodle

message: Too pro-schnoodle: neither dogs in general nor schnoodles are universaly loved, surely. If they were, this artical would be fair. Pelegius 20:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: pov

message: Please provide sources for all "citation needed" tagged passages or they will be stripped from the article shortly. Alvis 05:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: Many of the descriptions of a schnoodle in this article are not characteristic of the schnoodle by ANY means.  I breed schnoodles and have never come across a territorial schnoodle.  They are loving and gentle - never distrusting of other dogs.  Whoever wrote this clearly has no idea what they're talking about.
:I own a Schnoodle and it's the exact opposite.  Loves people, hates other dogs.  Regardless, if you have an issue with the article simply edit it.  Also, if you're going to talk on the this page please sign your posts. 67.82.83.74 14:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect 

message: Please redirect this to Dog_hybrids_and_crossbreeds#Portmanteau_names. Elf | Talk 06:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: delete/redirect

message: The second section on this page starts with what's what? That sounds weird. I think it should be changed. Mokoniki (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's what as a title? 

message: I've removed the "Notability" section for several reasons:
* It is uncited
* Simply being owned by a celebrity does not convey an object's "notability." 
* Structurally, there is no particular precedent (at least in Good Articles/Featured Articles) for such a superfluous section; it is essentially trivia.
Overall, the "Notability" of a topic should be summarized in the lead and substantiated throughout the article through citations to reliable third-party sources. 
Please articulate a rationale for the existence of such a section before restoring. --EEMIV (talk) 14:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Notability" 

message: Penguin60561 (talk) 02:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Penguin60561|Penguin60561]] ([[User talk:Penguin60561|talk]]) 02:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Volpino Italiano

message: The first two paragraphs of this WP article were apparently lifted from . Keesiewonder 20:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, indeed it was – please see below. The last of that stuff was removed by  in January 2020, so it been in our article for almost fifteen years. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources? 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://web.archive.org/web/20050218073611/http://www.thebreedsofdogs.com/VOLPINO_ITALIANO.htm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: We read (in the breed standard, for example) that Michelangelo had one of these dogs. But I can't find any documented evidence that he did. Biographies such as this and this, encyclopaedia entries such as this and this, our own article, all are silent on the subject. There is a small dog in the bottom left-hand corner of the The Crossing of the Red Sea in the Sistine Chapel; that painting is variously attributed to Ghirlandaio, Biagio d'Antonio and Cosimo Rosselli. It seems possible that a myth about Michelangelo may have arisen from reasoning along the lines of: there's a little dog in a painting in the Sistine Chapel – Michelangelo painted in the Sistine Chapel – so he must have painted that dog – so he must have owned a dog like that (well, OK, "reasoning" isn't really the right word). I propose removing this dubious claim unless solid independent reliable sources are found. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Axe it! William Harristalk 13:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michelangelo
Talk:Robert McKenna

message: For information :
Robert L. Neville 	April 28, 2005
http://www.stdominicchapel.com/clergy.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.177.192.210 (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The designation "OP" indicates that the person belongs to the Order of Preachers, or Dominicans.  McKenna would have been excommunicated from the Catholic Church, and a fortiori dismissed from the Dominicans, when he was consecrated bishop, at the latest (and probably from when he joined the ORCM).  The man has the right, I presume, to call himself whatever he wants, but as Wiki articles are written in the context of generally understood English, I think this needs to be clarified a bit in the article. He is not "OP" or "Dominican" in the way these terms are usually understood. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "OP" 
Talk:Gas Gas

message: I LOVE STINKY FOOTCHEESE! YUM YUM. PEOIFKOJENWGT MUHJQE ANORUTGKJ, AND THANK YOU! Jobby man (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  RATDOG
Talk:Super typhoon

message: Is this article even needed? The term super typhoon is completely unofficial, as it is only used by the JTWC (JTWC isn't an official agency). If this article is to stay, a lot more content is needed. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Todo

message: This article has about a 0% chance of staying, in my opinion. However, this could be part of a Typhoon article. Typhoons are different from hurricanes. Typhoons typically have lower pressures, and because they have more room for development there are more storms and more stronger storms. Also, the season is year round. The Pacific storms on the List of notable tropical cyclones could go there, as well. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be better to merge the info to Tropical cyclone scales. However, I agree, merge it somewhere. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should definitely be part of Tropical cyclone scales.  The pacific scales could themselves get mention in an article Pacific typhoon about the meteorology and climatology of tropical cyclones in that basin (corresponding to Atlantic hurricane). — jdorje (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Merged well straight redirect if you want to be fussy...--Nilfanion (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move?
Talk:National Airlines

message: I added the logo for National Airlines.  What would an airline page be without the logo.  I would add some examples of aircraft but that is getting too touchy with the copyrights and all.
Firerescuelieut 17:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: National Airlines

message: Does anybody else think this page should be set-up as two different pages, one with the "original" National, the other with the "new" (N7) National?  Check out Midway Airlines (ML) and Midway Airlines (JI).Elwood64151 19:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split Page?
Talk:Losillasaurus

message: Add this reference to the Losillasaurus page:
Royo-Torres, R., Cobos, A., and Alcalá, L. (2006). "A Giant European Dinosaur and a New Sauropod Clade." Science, 314: 1925-1927.
The cladistic analysis by Royo-Torres et. al. (2006) nested Losillasaurus within Turiasauria. The only other members of the new clade are Turiasaurus and Galveosaurus. Since Turiasaurus was a large sauropod, I hypothesize that Galveosaurus and Losillasaurus were also large.
:Well, get your hypothesis published and add a ref! ;) Obviously, remains of L. and G. are known, so it should be easy to compare their size with corresponding bones or scaled-up relatives from T. Dinoguy2 18:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference for Losillasaurus
Talk:Manila paper

message: Note - to add to this article and the paper one :
I came here because there is a question in RD/S about manila paper. What is the common thickness of such paper ?  They say in  :
Bulk or Caliper : The thickness of a single sheet of paper, expressed in points. A point equals 1/1000 inch.
Blanks : Heavyweight boards ranging from 15 to 48 points in thickness, both coated and uncoated. Primarily used for package printing, point-of-purchase displays, poster cards, etc. 
To evaluate, Google sez "(15/1 000) inch = 0.381 millimeters" --DLL 18:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thickness 

message: Should be included in this article when and if it's written.
My understanding is Manila was a cheaper fiber for making strong cardstock-like papers.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.172.127 (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archival and Acidic qualities
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Horror/Notable horror films

message: I finished sorting the unsorted section- should I delete the headers from that section? -Elizabennet 03:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsorted 

message: First of all, I'm working on adding infoboxes to the movies that need them so they can be moved to the 'done' page.  I'm not good at synopses and am not sure if its legal to just copy them from imdb or amg and so haven't been doing them.
Second of all, I think there should be a Category (Notable Horror Films) attached to this list (i.e. all the films on this list get put in that category).  I don't know if there is one already... but there should be!  Also, is there any way we can make it on to the Horror Portal page, and/or more prominently on the Horror Wikiproject page. -Elizabennet 17:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, you did a great job here! Secondly, a category for notable horror films would not make sense as, at least teoretically, only notable films are alowed to have articles - so all the hundreds of articles (I'm guessing here) are notable! However, the Horror WikiProject template on the articles' talk pages has an "importance" field which could serve this purpose. So, if you figure out how that works, all these articles should be assessed as Top/High importance. AdamSmithee 00:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A couple of things 

message: While looking through this list, I noticed that the article King Kong was listed here. It should be removed immediately for not being a horror film, this being a list of "Notable Horror Films". The article King Kong is about the character, not the film under the same name. King Kong (1933 film), for example, is a horror film article, but not King Kong. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 00:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  King Kong
Talk:Lourinhanosaurus

message: If, as it says in the article: 'Carrano et al. (2012) found it to be a coelurosaur.', and it is labelled as such in other articles ([]), then why does the taxobox of this article say Lourinhanosaurus is a member of the family Sinraptoridae?
If no one argues, I'm going to edit the article, but I'll read the Carrano et al. paper first just to be sure .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.29.70 (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Coelurosaur or what?

message: Feathers? Only if it is definitely in the related clade - from the article, it states this is still disputed, and may even be a more primitive form of the relatives of allosaurs - so that is definitely a feathered no-go. I propose a more neutral life reproduction at this time. HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is a coelurosaur, as one recent study has found, it would be likely, given its small size too. It could be argued that a restoration would be controversial in any case (whether feathered or not) at this time, since we have so little to go by. FunkMonk (talk) 02:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored it as a coelurosaur based on the most recent studies (which means it would have had primitive feathers) and based on the skeletal mount shown in the article. I would argue there is enough fossil evidence to go off of; almost the entire pelvis and lower spine is known and parts of the neck as well... in any case it was on the to-do list for illustrations for a few years. if there is enough for a museum mount wouldn't that merit an illustration? Audrey.m.horn (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  reproductions have artistic license, but -
Talk:Masculinity index

message: How verified does the information need to be? This is all based on research, and Hofstede is referenced by the article. I think the "unverified" tag at the start of the article really ought to be removed. Harkenbane 17:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we need a completely different article on Masculinity and feminity. But this article is entirely about Hofstede's concept of an "index". I'm going to do the merge. --Uncle Ed 14:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Outside the context given by Hofstedes full model, the article does only make sense to someone, who has a good understanding of the topic anyway. Isolated, it is misleading. Merge Yotwen 16:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Hurricane Gert (1999)

message: Good work Storm05! You've progressed amazingly over the past few months. Some things on the todo list include a longer intro, split up/longer storm history, and word/grammar improvements throughout the article. If possible, could the impact be broken up section by section? Are you sure that damage total is in 1999 USD? It could be 1999 Canadian Dollars, which would result in a lower total. More pictures would be nice. Also, as a tidbit, you could mention that Gert was one of five Category 4 hurricanes during the season, a record currently tied with the 2005 season. Definetly B-class material. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the trivia. Dont know about the damage total, I guessed that it maybe in USD although the NHC did not record that damage total. Storm05 14:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Todo
Talk:Wolf Burn

message: Seems genuine as noted at the AFD so restored. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 18:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Distillery

message: Alrighty, this article has been wikified :-) אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 00:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikification
Talk:Erich Salomon

message: The article states that this prize is "seen as a European equivalent to a Nobel Prize."  This statement makes no sense at all.  To begin with the Nobel prizes is a European prize (its awarded in Sweden).  Secondly, the Nobel prize is awarded for achievements in physics, chemistry, literature, peace, and physiology or medicine, not photojournalism.  Perhaps the article means to compare the prize to a Pulitzer award?!?  Either way, the comparison is not needed and I'm removing it today.  TheMindsEye 21:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Erich Salomon Prize 
Talk:Languages of Singapore

message: The article currently seems to focus only on residents (citizens + permanent residents), excluding the remaining 29% of the population. Do we have data on the languages spoken by these non-residents? For instance there are 1.1 million non-citizens who were born in Malaysia (see Immigration_to_Singapore#Statistics) and they most likely speak Malay. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Languages of non-residents
Talk:Modern antipope

message: For a lot of old discussion on the subject, the pre-split talk page of Antipope, see Talk:Antipope. --Pjacobi 18:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old discussion 

message: The veto was used on a number of cases - the last involved being Mariano Cardinal Rampolla and Pius X - have any sedevacationist claims arisen thereby? Jackiespeel 18:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sedevacationism and the papal veto

message: Sedevacantist antipope is a contradiction and does not exist. To be a sedevacantist one must deny that there is a pope. The article, to be encyclopedic, should be renamed conclavist popes and include a link to Benedict XVI (!). There can be a re-direct from conclavist antipopes and an explanation of why such a phrase is as nonsensical as atheist theist. pauldanon
:See my comments on the Antipope talk page - which relate to that article before it was rearranged to the present format. Jackiespeel 22:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the title is bad, for the additional reason that the Collinites are listed that are not even "ultradionalists", let alone "sedevacantist". How about "modern antipopes, "minor antipopes" or the like. Str1977 (smile back) 12:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Superfluity and non-encyclopedic nature
Talk:AD-mix

message: you forgot the nitrogen in the quinoline part of quinidine
* Thanks! for your remark, the structures were incorrect V8rik 21:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure mistake 

message: Sooo, what is this stuff? What's it used for? English descriptions? Maury 20:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lay-reader intro/too technical
Talk:Open Cascade Technology

message: The debian-legal thread about Open CASCADE is here: .
: There is also an update here . It seems that the Debian guys think the license is free, but that the owners are a little unsure if they mean it to be free (see discussion about preamble vs. license). GyroMagician (talk) 11:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: for debian squeeze it had been moved to main tree after resolve license issues and apply patches for just use free sofware  Accepted opencascade 6.3.0.dfsg.1-1  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristianpaul (talk • contribs) 14:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  DFSG 

message: OPEN CASCADE is the company name. Its development platform is called Open CASCADE Technology. The article needs to be renamed to "Open CASDCADE Technology". I can't do that myself since I do not have the right to rename articles yet. Please, someone rename this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DoceNNt (talk • contribs) 11:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: (Not by me, mind, you, I'm just marking this issue shut) --BjKa (talk) 09:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs to be renamed 

message: It would be interesting to know what exactly the criticism towards the current license is. I think this should go in the article. --BjKa (talk) 08:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open Software
Talk:1796 in rail transport

message: The Peak Forest Tramway was originally planned to be about four miles long from Chapel Milton to Dove Holes, both in Derbyshire. However, it was decided to start the tramway at Bugsworth (now called Buxworth) and, as built, it was about six miles long.
Its purpose was to carry limestone from the vast quarries around Dove Holes down to Bugsworth Basin, where much of it was taken by boat along the Peak Forest Canal and the Ashton Canal to Manchester and beyond. The remaining limestone was put into lime kilns at Bugsworth where it was converted into quick lime (or burnt lime).
The tramway opened for trade on the 31 August 1796.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_Forest_Tramway
Wdew (talk) 09:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Peak Forest Tramway
Talk:1801 in rail transport

message: March 24, 1802 - Richard Trevithick took out his first patent, for the first full sized road locomotive;
December 24, 1801 - demonstrated it to the public, successfully carried a number of men up Beacon Hill;
February 21, 1804 - tested first self-propelling steam engine or steam locomotive to run on rails at the Peny-Darren ironworks on its normally horse-drawn tramline;  able to pull a load of 15 tons at a speed of about 5 mph; adhesion was a problem as the iron wheels slipped on the iron rails, cast-iron rails of the tramways not strong enough to support the weight of new machine, experiment abandoned.
http://www.kipnotes.com/Railroads.htm
Met Trevithicks eerste wegvoertuig met hoge-drukstoom werd op kerstavond van 1801 proefgereden. Trevithicks tweede stoomrijtuig werd twee jaar later in Londen vervaardigd. Het voertuig maakte diverse geslaagde lange ritten door Londen. Maar niemand, zelfs de kranten niet, schijnt enige notitie te habben genomen van deze opmerkelijke verrichting. Hierna werkte Trevithick niet meer een wegvoertuigen.
Boek: Grote Uitvindingen -  - wettelijk depot D/1978/0199/101, blz. 61
Trevithick bouwde rond 1800 een primitieve stoomauto, the Puffing Devil. Op kerstavond 1801 maakte hij met zeven vrienden de allereerste autorit uit de geschiedenis. Geen succes, maar dat was niet Trevithicks schuld.
De toenmalige wegen waren zo slecht dat de stoomauto kapot dokkerde.
http://195.0.110.36/detailpagina.cfm?id=3350&programma=memo
Wdew (talk) 09:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 1st full sized road locomotive
Talk:1808 in rail transport

message: Catch-Me-Who-Can
Richard Trevithick seems to have given up the idea of producing steam locomotives until persuaded by his friend, a wealthy Cornish landowner, Davis Giddy to have another go.
This locomotive was built to try and get the general public interest in this new form of transport.
It was run on a purpose built circular track laid at Euston, London, pulling an open four-wheeled carriage.
This took place between 8th July and 18th September 1808 with tickets costing one shilling (5 pence).
http://www.locos-in-profile.co.uk/Articles/Early_Locos/early1.html
In 1808 demonstreerde Trevithick zijn locomotief 'Catch-me-who-can' en een rijtuig op een cirkelvormige baan in Londen.
Maar ondanks de snelheid van meer dan 19 km/h bleef de breekbaarheid van de rails verder succes in de weg staan.
Ook de beoogde belangstelling van financiers bleef uit.
Die van het publiek bleef beperkt tot een aantal bezoekers die tegen een tarief van 1 shilling konden meerijden: overigens de eerste betalende reizigers voor railtransport...
http://www.railmusea.nl/200JaarStoomOpHetSpoor/
'Catch-Me-Who-Can' ran on a demonstration circular track at a 'steam circus' established by Trevithick in Euston Square in London between July and September 1808.
For a charge of one shilling, members of the public could ride on a carriage pulled by the locomotive.
The ride, which was capable of travelling at speeds of up to 12 mph, was popular with the London public, but the weight of the locomotive broke the rails, and it closed after two months.
http://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10250628
Wdew 14:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1st paying steamtrain passengers?