lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:28th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment

message: The article refers to the 28th being the second regiment comprised of Irish.  What is the other one?  In the category "Irish regiments of the United States Army" I don't see any other Massachusetts Civil War regiment.
Cbmccarthy (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: What is the other Irish regiments from Massachusetts in the Civil War?
Talk:5th Indiana Volunteers

message: *I'm unable to find the 5th Indiana Volunteers in other references to Indiana Civil War regiments.  The name sounds like it might have been a cavalry regiment.  There was a 5th Regiment Indiana Cavalry with the alternate designation 90th Regiment Indiana Infantry.  There was also a 5th Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry in the Mexican War.  Can someone please help in identifying this unit more specifically? -- Cuppysfriend 23:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this unit correctly identified?
Talk:Andrew von Eschenbach

message: The article says:
:On August 1, 2006, Senators Clinton and Cantwell announced they would block his nomination to be the permanent FDA commissioner because of his department's failure to act on the application by Barr Pharmaceuticals to sell Plan B over-the-counter.
However both of those Senators voted to confirm him.  The linked CNN article seems to no longer exist, and I can't find any other information on this.  Is this statement correct?  And if so, is there information on why they changed their minds?  In the end, 11 people voted against his nomination, 10 of them Republicans, and the eleventh Max Baucus. --Delirium 08:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cantwell/Clinton opposition 

message: I just really want to know what the C in his name stands for. Does anyone know and does Wikipedia still function? Let me know please Hmeters (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andrew Von eschenbach
Talk:2nd Iowa Infantry Regiment

message: The state flag was not adopted until the 1920's, perhaps a picture of an Iowan battle flag or no picture at all would be better?
There are paintings of the 2nd Iowans in battle as well that could go in place.
I am not sure the rules/norm for other Civil War regiments.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.125.245.212 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch! I've made a change using existing images already applied to the page BusterD (talk) 12:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different Flag?
Talk:Forney High School

message: One change that I made that I had a question about was removing the "theatre department" from extracurricular award-winning organizations. The department would not win an award, but a certain group within that department such as UIL One-Act Play could. An academic department is not an extracurricular organization.
I edited a lot of what I and others found to be careless mistakes or poor wording. If you have an issue with anything that I've done, please revise within the current formatting and leave a brief note here so that we know what is going on.
Thank you,
Halberd 04:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Errors Fixed

message: I have attempted to properly cite references for this article and am not sure if they are put in properly. Please fix anything I have missed.
Thanks,
Indyjrg1762 (talk) 01:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Citing References
Talk:John Kyle

message: Enter "Kyl" at Congress's bio site to see both surnames. The Johns and Jons:
* KYL, John Henry
* KYL, Jon Llewellyn
* KYLE, John Curtis
Note John W. Kyle does not have a congressional bio.--Jerzy•t 17:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:7th Illinois Infantry Regiment

message: The separate stub 7th Illinois Infantry Regiment (3 Months) should be merged here. In my view, there is no need to separate out the two eras of the regiment based on the two enlistment terms. The initial history and activities of the regiment in 1861 with its 3-month enlistees can and should be covered here. In any case, the current situation is untenable, as this page is currently the primary topic, but there is no hatnote to the 3 month article, nor a disambiguation page, and each of these articles should be disambiguated with 7th Illinois Infantry Regiment (National Guard) which is a redirect to 122nd Field Artillery Regiment. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal
Talk:6th Pennsylvania Regiment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on 6th Pennsylvania Regiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100608052649/http://www.history.army.mil/reference/revbib/pa.htm to http://www.history.army.mil/reference/revbib/pa.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
 --Lineagegeek (talk) 11:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified
Talk:Space (NewsRadio episode)

message: I looked for an example of a TV episode article written in an encyclopedic style, rather than a fan-page style. But they all seem to be like this (at best...). --Falcotron 17:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Style

message: Killing all of the characters in case you don't get picked up is a TV writing tradition, especially among non-formula "niche" shows. Supposedly, the idea is that if the network really is going to pick up the show, they'll reject the episode. However, this never happens, and everyone knows it. (Most famously, Alan Spencer ended the first season of Sledge Hammer! by destroying all of Los Angeles, and then had the show renewed.) NewsRadio (irreverent even to the in-jokes of their irreverent-comedy forebears) was clearly satirizing this tradition. But I don't know how to work that into the article without all this back-story. --Falcotron 17:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia
Talk:Matthew Thiessen and the Earthquakes

message: For the record, "I Hate Christmas Parties" first appeared on the "Happy Christmas Volume III" compilation.
:Yes, but I figured I should list it as a part of the record that is more available, Relient K's Christmas CD.RoryS89 22:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

message: I recommend merging this solo project with the soloist's page. Zytsef (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeh. That sounds like a great idea. (especially since they are both the same article) Darchaf (talk) 20:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. —Akrabbimtalk 02:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I was responding to this section as if you were proposing Matt Thiessen and the Earthquakes be merged into this one because that's what the merge templates were suggesting.  Anyway, I have merged Matt Thiessen and the Earthquakes into this one, and I am going to start merging this one into Matt Thiessen.  (See the talk page section I added to Talk:Matt Thiessen). —Akrabbimtalk 12:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, the merging is complete —Akrabbimtalk 14:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Recomendation to merge
Talk:Fun-Da-Mental

message: Aren't Inder Matharu and Goldfinger Man-Tharoo actually the same person....? ChrisTheDude 17:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes! ;-) - Dann Chinn (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I've made a start on this... - 86.151.42.46 (talk) 00:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've cleared up a lot of the article text now - hopefully the improvements are obvious (although I still need to fix some references). More work needs to be done - in particular, more information is needed on the recordings released between 1995 and 2005, as well as the group's shift away from hip-hop. I'll see if I can find anything on this to cite. - Dann Chinn (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Mary Ellis grave

message: so there's a cemetery in a movie theater parking lot?  what's so special about it or the people buried there that kept it from being paved over? -- stubblyhead | T/c 18:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not debating it's relevance or notability.  just curious what made loew's care enough to leave it be. -- stubblyhead | T/c 15:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  huh? 

message: All of the dates of Mary Ellis' death in this article are inconsistent and confusing:
* The lead paragraph (parenthetically) states that she died in 1827, as does the caption of the photo.
* The New York Times article cited in Footnote (currently #5) states that she died in 1826.
* The grave marker in the photograph indicates a death date of 1828 (or perhaps 1829) ... it's somewhat blurred and hard to read ... but it does not at all look like 1826 or 1827.
Can someone who knows the actual accurate date please fix all of these inconsistencies ... or, at least, explain them within the article?  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Section moved without substantial change from Talk:Mary Ellis (spinster) following a merge, as the dates still need to be checked. --Mirokado (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  The photo of the gravestone in Findagrave clearly shows 1828 (perhaps this is now a better photo than previously). The Findagrave text still says 1827 but I will assume that is a typo, update the article to say 1828 and add a note that sources are in disagreement. --Mirokado (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of death, Mary Ellis 

message: Hi,
I'm wondering if this article needs to be called Mary Ellis Grave or grave. I'm unfamiliar with the American ways of english so could someone please tell me which one is better?
AussieCoinCollector (talk)  wish the entire world's COVID-19 status was like WA, 275+ days of no local cases :)  23:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also not American, but the current title complies with MOS:TITLECASE and is consistent with the usage (the Mary Ellis grave) in the rest of the article. Both capitalisations turn up in a Google search, so I'm happy with the current name. --Mirokado (talk) 23:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mary Ellis grave vs. Mary Ellis Grave
Talk:John Erwin

message: Has John Erwin actually been acting since 1928. This would make him how old by the time he did He-Man in 1983? And the fact that he's still around (though not as prolific)
This info about him being in the acting biz since the 1920s was probably obtained from the IMDB. No birthdate given and he is most definitely still around. Though it's not impossible that he is much older than we thought (based on his He-man voice), the only thing I see prior to 1960 is a movie from 1928. That is a 32 year gap. Could this John Erwin from 1928 actually be someone else?Mr. ATOZ 18:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good question.  I've always thought Erwin was up there in age, but not THAT high. John 04:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, you can see how old John is in a '90s Intel Pentium II "Baseball" TV commercial where he plays the radio sports commentator. He sounds just like Prince Adam from He-Man and the Masters of the Universe and the radio announcer in Back to the Future Part II. He does look up there in age. Check it out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zn7xsARwa1c Jeanlovecomputers (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What year was he actually born in? Wikipedia and IMDB state 1936, but Wiki Grayskull and Behind the Voice Actors both say 1948.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.1.143.128 (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Acting
Talk:Manto (geology)

message: Orebody mantos are irregular to rod shaped ore occurrences usually horizontal or near horizontal in attitude and commonly restricted to some stratigraphic layer. Sorry, as someone who knows nothing of the subject, this opening line gives me no indication of the details of the subject matter.  Would someone who is knowledgable about the suject re-write this part, so it means something to the layman ??? Thanks, David</span>HumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 18:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Talk:STS 14

message: I noticed that you have added merge tags to a lot of the human evolution fossil pages I have recently created. I understand that these pages are pretty short stubs right now, but I disagree with the merge tags. Eventually I will add pictures and more details about each find. I think if we merged the specimens into the species we might lose a lot of the info. I suppose in a few species represented by 1 or two fossils it wouldn't be too bad to have a section on each fossil, but on species with 5-6 representative fossils, it could get congested very quickly. Also with new fossils being found, we never know how many a species may have in the future. Let me know what you think. Nowimnthing 11:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, OK; I checked out the Taung child page. Makes sense now. So, just go on and remove the tags at your discretion. Sorry for the hassle... I was browsing throught the paleo-stubs category and found the pages odd, so I tagged them. Dysmorodrepanis 11:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, no problem, I thought a merge discussion might come up at some point, but I do have some valid reasons for wanting seperate pages. If you don't mind I will add this commentary to each of the pages to show that a merge has been discussed. Nowimnthing 16:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge tags

message: 1. Some species have numerous fossils finds, since Wikipedia is not made of paper we can have information on each of these very important finds but that information may be cumbersome in a species article if there are numerous specimens.
2. Each find should eventually have at least one picture if not more, allowing people to see the specific features scientists use to classify species. Again this would be cluttering in a species page.
3. A standardized look to the fossil pages giving pertinant info like date discovered and age will give researchers faster access to the info than trying to dig it out of a species page.
4. Some fossils either have not reached a consensus about their species classification or have changed classifications in the past. Having their own page makes it easy to note the controversy and change the classification if necessary. Nowimnthing 16:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons against merge of specific fossils into species

message: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/223331843_The_obstetric_pelvis_of_A.L._288-1_%28Lucy%29
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9680468
©Geni (talk) 03:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Article that mentions STS 14 sex
Talk:Order of the Lithuanian Grand Duke Gediminas

message: I don't think it should be "Lithuanian" duke. It should be "of Lithuania". So choices then really are: (1) Order of Gediminas, Grand Duke of Lithuania or (2) Order of Grand Duke of Lithuania Gediminas. I go with the first one. Renata 18:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: oh no Renata! I made this mistke before  you once and I do not want to repet it again ;) See award law nad how it calls it:   M.K. 18:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agh, ok. 'xcept that seimas does not know English :( Renata 21:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Talk:TM 1517

message: I noticed that you have added merge tags to a lot of the human evolution fossil pages I have recently created. I understand that these pages are pretty short stubs right now, but I disagree with the merge tags. Eventually I will add pictures and more details about each find. I think if we merged the specimens into the species we might lose a lot of the info. I suppose in a few species represented by 1 or two fossils it wouldn't be too bad to have a section on each fossil, but on species with 5-6 representative fossils, it could get congested very quickly. Also with new fossils being found, we never know how many a species may have in the future. Let me know what you think. Nowimnthing 11:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, OK; I checked out the Taung child page. Makes sense now. So, just go on and remove the tags at your discretion. Sorry for the hassle... I was browsing throught the paleo-stubs category and found the pages odd, so I tagged them. Dysmorodrepanis 11:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, no problem, I thought a merge discussion might come up at some point, but I do have some valid reasons for wanting seperate pages. If you don't mind I will add this commentary to each of the pages to show that a merge has been discussed. Nowimnthing 16:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge tags

message: 1. Some species have numerous fossils finds, since Wikipedia is not made of paper we can have information on each of these very important finds but that information may be cumbersome in a species article if there are numerous specimens.
2. Each find should eventually have at least one picture if not more, allowing people to see the specific features scientists use to classify species. Again this would be cluttering in a species page.
3. A standardized look to the fossil pages giving pertinant info like date discovered and age will give researchers faster access to the info than trying to dig it out of a species page.
4. Some fossils either have not reached a consensus about their species classification or have changed classifications in the past. Having their own page makes it easy to note the controversy and change the classification if necessary. Nowimnthing 16:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons against merge of specific fossils into species
Talk:IMZ-Ural

message: The previous intro said the technology and production facilities were licensed from BMW.  This is only one of at least two theories.  The article presents the theories so I've made the intro more "fuzzy" to allow for either being true.  It seems even well-read historians of this motorcycle debate this point.  (See some of the online forums and printed journalism articles, for example.) --Ds13 18:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of the five bmw theory seems to be a direct copy (copy-vio) of http://www.ural.com.au/history.html
There is a more plausible explanation from the current Chinese manufacturs of these bikes at http://www.sidecar.co.za/history_of_the_cj750.html - Seasalt 05:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Origins

message: Some of the pictures are covering some of the text.  If I knew how, I'd fix it, but . . . .  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.119.206.134 (talk) 00:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: rendering

message: The history of the "URAL" had begun with the glory of helping to defeat the terror of Hitler's armies on the Russian and European battlefields.
 URALs are a unique combination of price, classic styling and side-car, just like my "dad's or grandad's bike".
Couple of excerpts, sounds a bit like promotional copy to me. Was (part of) this text taken from a brochure? And is there anyone familiar with this manufacturer that can separate fact from fiction, while maintaining the tone that suits an encyclopaedia? -- MiG (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Writing style

message: Quoting from the article, "In July 2000, the company was re-organised with the government's shares being redistributed to investors.
At the beginning of 1998 the business was bought by private Russian interests and it is no longer a State Company."
This seems to be a contradiction; if the government shares were only sold in mid-2000, how could the company have become private over 2 years earlier? Some clarification would be welcome IMHO. --Stizzleswick (talk) 03:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline 
Talk:West Park, West Riding of Yorkshire

message: Should delete page and use West Park, Leeds instead as West Park is only a suburb of Leeds and the West Riding of Yorkshire really is the historical rather than the current name for the area West Yorkshire.
Whohe!
:Agree 217.43.247.84 14:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree also!  PamD 14:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Talk:OH 7

message: I noticed that you have added merge tags to a lot of the human evolution fossil pages I have recently created. I understand that these pages are pretty short stubs right now, but I disagree with the merge tags. Eventually I will add pictures and more details about each find. I think if we merged the specimens into the species we might lose a lot of the info. I suppose in a few species represented by 1 or two fossils it wouldn't be too bad to have a section on each fossil, but on species with 5-6 representative fossils, it could get congested very quickly. Also with new fossils being found, we never know how many a species may have in the future. Let me know what you think. Nowimnthing 11:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, OK; I checked out the Taung child page. Makes sense now. So, just go on and remove the tags at your discretion. Sorry for the hassle... I was browsing throught the paleo-stubs category and found the pages odd, so I tagged them. Dysmorodrepanis 11:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, no problem, I thought a merge discussion might come up at some point, but I do have some valid reasons for wanting seperate pages. If you don't mind I will add this commentary to each of the pages to show that a merge has been discussed. Nowimnthing 16:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge tags

message: 1. Some species have numerous fossils finds, since Wikipedia is not made of paper we can have information on each of these very important finds but that information may be cumbersome in a species article if there are numerous specimens.
2. Each find should eventually have at least one picture if not more, allowing people to see the specific features scientists use to classify species. Again this would be cluttering in a species page.
3. A standardized look to the fossil pages giving pertinant info like date discovered and age will give researchers faster access to the info than trying to dig it out of a species page.
4. Some fossils either have not reached a consensus about their species classification or have changed classifications in the past. Having their own page makes it easy to note the controversy and change the classification if necessary. Nowimnthing 16:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons against merge of specific fossils into species

message: How a brain showing a capacity of 663 cc at 8-9 years old could have a capacity of only 590 cc once adult as listed...
Better to say that is could be estimated between 674-710 cc once adult.
-- luxorion  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:7E8:C6AC:201:5507:71D9:657B:4F29 (talk) 11:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brain capacity
Talk:RAF Boulmer

message: I have removed the below sentence from the article due i am unable to find any other reference to the unit in both Lake (Flying units of the RAF, 1999) and Sturtivant (Royal Air Force flying training and support units, 1997) or any other trusted reliable source.
"In November 1943 RAF Boulmer became home to No 9 Battle Training School, in which night flying, dive-bombing, strafing, bouncer, and chase tactics were taught.  As the war ended the airfield closed, reverting to agricultural use."
Gavbadger (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  No. 9 Battle Training School removed from article
Wikipedia talk:What isn't grounds for article deletion

message: I tried to make it not look like a rant.  But I'm just sick of people claiming that articles should be deleted, for example, for a lack of sources.  If the topic is inappropriate for Wikipedia, just say which guideline applies and thats it! Dark Shikari 18:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why I wrote this essay

message: Yeah... -Amark moo! 01:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  So what if there ''are'' no sources in existence? 

message: This page asserts that certain things are or are not valid per policy, and makes false assertions while doing so. What it means is that the sole author of this page wishes that certain nominations were invalid, whereas in fact there's nothing wrong with them. >Radiant< 11:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page is false