lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Tea blending and additives

message: Just as a thought, this topic could support two articles, one on the art of 'constructing' a blend of just teas, and one on the various additives to tea.  Having known a tea trader, I've some idea of just how complicated the former is, and how relatively little it has in common with the peppermint teas et al.  Alternatively the blending bit could go into the main Tea article, and this one could be renamed Flavoured teas or something - thinking about it, that would be my preferred option at this stage. FlagSteward 09:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Split?

message: It's not clear that lychee and Vietnamese lotus flower teas are all made with artificial (synthetic) scents, or have always been. For the lotus, it's documented that the tea was actually deposited overnight in actual lotus blossoms growing in lakes. I believe information about these two should be added. Badagnani (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lychee/Vietnamese lotus flower 

message: Black tea mixed with orchid flowers is not uncommon, but is not mentionned in this article. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Done — PaleoNeonate — 20:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orchid flowers 

message: "the process may also sometimes be used to cover and obscure the quality of sub-standard teas.[citation needed]"
i strongly diasgree with the citation needed tag and suggest to remove it from the sentence.
Because, how would you find a citation for that? you would need some particular case when a vendor was accused and proven guilty of the use of aromas with the deliberate intent to disguise the tasteless, undesirable quality of the product used in the process. that will never happen, mostly because theres no legal sanction against selling a product that does not taste as good as the other products in the market, or has no taste whatsoever. 
addition of the aroma implies in itself that the product became better sellable by that, otherwise no vendor would spend time and money by doing that. if there is a lowest quality product that still falls within legaly allowed limits, and this product does have an aroma added to it, there you have the proof of this happenning, thougs the marked sentence of the article mentioned the possibility, not the actual case-by-case provability of this.
if one really doesnt like the tone of the sentence, you could change it to sg like "it is more widespread to use added aromas in the lower -price segment of teas than in the expensive ones that are thought of as higher quality", or something similar.
okay maybe "substandard quality teas" can be changed to "teas of the lower quality segment". 176.63.176.112 (talk) 12:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  no, citation is NOT needed for triviality
Talk:Carl Kabat

message: Please don't make any edits to this page unless you know about Father Kabat! Please don't delete this page, as I just started it. I'm aware that I don't cite my sources yet - that will come. This page will grow. Please exercise patience and have faith in my good intentions. Thank you!
--BeastKing89 21:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article was painful to read, I'm surprised it made front-page ITN as a class C article. I shorted the Early Life section to remove excessive amounts of third-party information found on other pages; The 'Court's suppression' sentence is NPOV and I don't know what it is trying to say with "witness at General Electric" so I left it as is. I removed a footnote that should be an external link, and the next to last paragraph was lifted word-for-word from a copyrighted source so I removed it and rewrote the key points. --80.132.236.193 (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Aug 26 Edit
Talk:Starbury

message: If it weren't for the material in one of the final paragraphs, where an independent agency determines that the materials are inferior to more expensive products, this would be a sales brochure for the company.  I'm wondering if some of this material needs to be removed -- for instance, the product section is like a corporate brochure and can be covered with a link to the company's website.  Accounting4Taste 21:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

message: I'm nominating this article for deletion because I don't see the notability of this company.  The article lacks reliable sources, and is only linked to from the mainspace in the article about its founder. Ichibani 22:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article is notable enough. These sneakers are important as pop-culture fashion and commercial revisionism. It's been talked about enough in the media and culture that as of September '07, it is somewhat recognizable. Mvblair 17:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: Are these shoes made in sweatshops?
Miserlou 20:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sweatshop?
Talk:Spring Lake School District

message: Victuallers 16:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

message: This article intimates that the Tuttle Ave. school opened in the mid-50s. It was opened well before then. (I attended there in 1946.) Having the correct opening date of this building would clarify this and add information to the page. 74.131.112.94 (talk) 17:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of Tuttle Ave building 
Talk:Aerocardal

message: This airline has two articles Aerocardal and Aero Cardal. Suggest that they be merged into this article and Aero Cardal changed to a redirect page. Any comments. MilborneOne 21:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fully support Ardfern 20:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested Merge
Talk:River Swale

message: I have reworked this. More inline citations would help. It needs some page references for the books quoted. These references were second hand. I am undecided about the list table. If it is too much i can put them on sub-pages. It still could do with more expansion of some of the sections, please chip in. As always open to constructive criticism. Rimmer1993 (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reworked page 

message: In the crossings list, I miss Reeth Swing Bridge at 54.385745N, 1.952407W (only a footbridge but nevertheless a crossing?). Found it difficult to add into the list as the following rows need their last two colums shifted to make space. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reeth Swing Bridge 

message: I know that's what the source says but I've lost count of the number of rivers which I've heard that claim made in respect of. Geopersona (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fastest rising river in England?
Talk:Consus

message: Created by RollingStone122 21:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Neptun was not exactly the same as Poseidon. Neptun was the Etruscan god of underground waters, rather than of sea or ocean. Etruscans called him Nethun.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vibenna (talk • contribs) 23:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neptun - Nethun
Talk:National University of Lesotho

message: what higher education courses do you offer--~
kjd gjszrjgsldgodgewreyaeytre5  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.236.86.106 (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 
Talk:NCAA Division I FBS football win–loss records

message: I think the win/loss/tie for each team should be their all-time record while playing at the highest level of college football or if they had years not at the highest level of football games can be included against teams playing a the highest level.  For example, Old Dominion [which I just changed to be 1-4 all-time with 0 years] has not had any games played at the FBS level prior to the 2014 season although they have played five FBS opponents prior to the 2014 season and have gone 1-4 against those opponents.  Other teams that have always played at the highest level, for example Michigan, would have all of their games included in their all-time win/loss/tie record as well as all of their years they have fielded a team in their years column since all of those years were at the highest level.  This may be difficult to figure out for each team and is not as simple as copying it out of the NCAA pdf but I think it gives a better win/loss/tie and year history of teams playing at the highest level of football which is what this page should be about, rather than the NCAA pdf which lists wins/losses/ties and years when teams are considered "senior colleges" [whatever that means].  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.87.144.181 (talk) 02:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the records should just be from when the teams were FBS teams, and not including when they were FCS teams playing FBS teams. Kobra98 (talk) 05:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: New way to calculate win/loss/tie and years?

message: The source I use for this site is the NCAA official records. I do not use the College Football Data Warehouse due to the amount of differences between that and the official NCAA records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RhinoSpear79 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: Because of the arbitrary nature of the College football's ten most victorious programs article, arbitrarily cutting of the list at 10, and the lack of third party references justifying the use of a top 10, the article seems to violate WP:OR and  WP:POV. The article also seems unnecessary as it is duplicating information from this article and therefore seem very close to violate WP:NOTE, WP:Spam, and WP:BOOSTER.  It seems ideal to merge with this article, as opposed to send it to AfD, once this article is updated, and making the tables comprehensive, to adhere to WP:NPOV. CrazyPaco (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: The win percentage in this article is (Wins + .5(Ties))/(Total Games).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RhinoSpear79 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Calculation of Win Percentage

message: The initial sort of this page is by winning percentage, not overall wins. The page is adjustable in order to see different comparisons such as overall wins or losses or ties, winning percentage, conference affiliation, or teams in alphabetical order.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RhinoSpear79 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial sort
Talk:Schott NYC

message: Schott had never a contract for the A-2 jacket during the world war II--Dusty Roy (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Schott A-2 Jacket
Talk:Captain Clegg (film)

message: This article has had its infobox tag removed by a cleanup using AWB.
Any concerns please leave me a message at my talk page. RWardy 19:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "needs infobox" tag 
Talk:The Knight Templar

message: When I wrote "all of Christendom" I meant the Christian world (and territories), I wasn't talking about the religion. I changed the formulation to avoid confusion.
DarkAvenger 21:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christendom/Christianity 

message: Why is a historical romance book of unimportance included as a separate article on Wikipedia? This is just historical fiction. While it may be entertaining, does it actually meet any criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia? Should Wikipedia include every book that has been published? Should Wikipedia continue to list fantasy books while disallowing factually historical, and academic books, unless they are best sellers? Look at all of the articles on academic scholars that Wikipedia deletes every single year... Why are we deleting those people and their work, and retaining imaginary, useless stuff like this? There needs to be some kind of criteria for articles worthy of inclusion/exclusion on Wikipedia, and at this moment there is not...Stevenmitchell (talk) 20:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is This Book on Wikipedia?
Talk:DejaView

message: The SVG version of the logo is used three times on the homepage of DejaView. It would seem that it is an acceptable version of the logo. The GIF version is rotated slightly, and appears only once. Please also see the PDF schedule on the web site, which uses the SVG version. I see no reason not to choose the higher quality of the two logos (the SVG version) for use on the article. - AWeenieMan (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo
Talk:MovieTime

message: Beginning in the fall of 2007, Lonestar has abandoned most of it's western programming, relegating it to the low-viewership hours of 2:00am to 6:00pm PST (11:00am on weekends and holidays). In its place, Lonestar is showing action-oriented movies such as Speed, Ocean's 12, and There's Something About Mary. This should be added to the article, but I can't find a reference to it online anywhere. Anyone? Greg Salter (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Faced with this change, in all fairness, the CRTC should let in the US equivalent, or put them on notice of licence revocation if someone else is willing to offer programming of the original character. GBC (talk) 11:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving Away From Westerns 
Talk:USS Asterion (AK-100)

message: I removed an item about the ship not being scrapped, and sailing w/ the Bull line in 1946 onwards. This appears to refer to a second ship of the same names, as seen at:
http://www.theshipslist.com/ships/lines/bull.htm
Foxfire949 (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second ship named SS Evelyn
Talk:1955–56 European Cup

message: Hello,
First of all: there is no source specified for the start times.
Secondly: according to www.timeanddate.com in 1955 there were some countries where DST was already recognized (eg. Lisbon, Budapest), and there were some where was not (eg. Geneva, Essen). AFAIK in wiki if place is defined, then the time of that place shall be used.
--Simy (talk) 13:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question regarding start times
Talk:USS Indiana (BB-1)

message: Where was this ship built? What is the connection with Pennsylvania? The article does not say. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is in the infobox: William Cramp and Sons, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. But I do agree that the prose is lacking this crucial element. -MBK004 06:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The only two relations with Pennsylvania are that the ship was built there (as MBK004 pointed out) and after its second decommission in 1914 it was moored there together with all the other obsolete battleships. I will add something to the prose about it being build in Philadelphia, but to be honest I think this lies outside the Pennsylvania projects scope (especially with the separate Wikipedia:WikiProject Philadelphia).Yoenit (talk) 09:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where was this ship built?  

message: It's not often (indeed rarely) that the above can be said about a Wiki article, but these do apply to this one. Good job.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.140 (talk) 15:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well Written and Informative
Talk:USS Delaware (BB-28)

message: I found this while looking for other information. Just search for "Delaware" and there's an account of some of the ship's activities along with a court of inquiry. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible source? 

message: The article currently states that "Delaware was the first American battleship capable of steaming for 24 hours straight without suffering a breakdown or needing repairs."  I'm wondering if someone with access to the cited source can double-check this claim.  My understanding is that Delaware was the first battleship that could steam at full speed for 24-hours without a breakdown, not merely that it was the first that could steam for 24-hours at all.  This would be consistent with the statement on the Delaware-class page itself.  Frankly, it would be pretty remarkable if before the Delaware no American battleship could steam a full day without needing repairs -- I can only imagine what a pain that would have been on the cruise of the Great White Fleet or during the Oregon's famous run around Cape Horn during the Spanish-American War. Jrt989 (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: A good catch, I've fixed the article. Parsecboy (talk) 14:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  24-hour steaming
Talk:USS Florida (BB-30)

message: *At the end of the WWI section, the article states the ship left the United States on "12 December", then has it arriving in Brest, France on "13 December".  Presume one of those dates is incorrect, or it's a very fast ship.
Slofella (talk) 07:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date error
Talk:Acronym Finder

message: It would seem from the Google results that Mountain Data Systems LLC, the Acronym Finder company, is in Estes Park, Colorado. --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mountain Data Systems LLC. 

message: I'm not quite calling for speedy deletion of this (it is a wiki after all with almost unlimited storage) - but why was this ever considered notable? Jimw338 (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why notable? 

message: Since March 2016, there has been no activity on the Acronymfinder.com site.  According to the Statistics page, no new acronyms have been added in a long time.  I tried to contact tnem, but the e-mail bounced.  Coloradocorporates.com has the company Mountain Data Systems, who publishes Acronymfinder.com, listed as being voluntarily dissolved.
96.88.129.169 (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  No activity on Acronymfinder.com
Talk:USS Nevada (BB-36)

message: The article's lead refers to the ship as "it", while the rest of the article uses "she" and "her". Is this intentional? GBev1987 (talk) 12:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: “She” and “her” aren’t proper to use for ships, only a tradition… recommend change all those to “it”  CanO27sprite (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Feminine pronouns are entirely proper to use for ships so you're wrong on that. As for your recommendation, I for one oppose. Have a nice day - wolf 01:07, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "She" or "it"? 

message: Fog of war aside, are there any fairly reliable reports of hits from her guns on German positions & the damgage therefrom?  is 'therefrom' a word?  it is now!  -HammerFilmFan 50.111.195.179 (talk) 16:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  any details of damage done at D-Day?
Talk:Mesirow Financial

message: I deprodded this because of the Google news search results that went on for 7 pages. Admittedly, many of those were for Diane Swonk, but I feel an AFD is the appropriate course if this article is going to get deleted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)  13:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  DeProd
Talk:Ostomy system

message: Could someone make an article in simple wikipedia?  — 6etonyourfeet\t\c 00:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too technical 

message: --
That term is used pretty much universally in the UK, including by:
* the NHS
* Cancer Research UK
* the British Journal of Surgery
"Ostomy pouching system" seems to be overwhelmingly an American term - a Google for it on UK sites brings up precisely one hit, whereas "colostomy bag" brings up fourteen thousand! ''
86.136.251.164 15:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added "colostomy bag" with a dictionary reference. Ostomy pouching system may be common in the US. Elsewhere, to both manufacturers, suppliers, medical staff and users, it's a "colostomy bag". --Tóraí (talk) 18:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly that's the term used by the general public in the UK. I've noticed recently that medical professionals seem to be switching to the term "stoma bag". In any event, nobody calls them "ostomy pouches". I'd never even heard of that term until I read it here. --Ef80 (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "incorrectly called" a Colostomy Bag? Not sure about that 

message: that there are trolls on wikipedia:"shit sack" redirects here69.244.20.68 (talk) 08:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Proof

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Shit sack. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Shit sack" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Poo sack. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Poo sack" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Poo bag. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Poo bag" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Piss Bag. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Piss Bag" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Pee bag. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pee bag" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Crap Bag. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Crap Bag" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Megacable

message: this is cheap propaganda, probably written by the merchandising department of this company... don´t believe what the article says....
* Source? WhisperToMe (talk) 04:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: * http://www.megacable.com.mx/reportes/anualreport/ingles.swf
WhisperToMe (talk) 04:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Annual reports

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 